Hansard — Wednesday, May 9, 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		7749

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		7750
	Family caregivers
	C. James
	Parksville park restoration
	R. Cantelon
	Mental illness
	R. Chouhan
	Tour of Courage cancer fundraiser
	S. Hawkins
	Cariboo student participation in national science fair
	C. Wyse
	Calona Wines
	A. Horning

Oral Questions		7752
	Farmworker vehicle inspections
	C. James
	Hon. K. Falcon
	Government action on farmworker safety
	R. Chouhan
	Hon. K. Falcon
	Farmworker vehicle inspections
	C. Puchmayr
	Hon. K. Falcon
	M. Farnworth
	Fish feed contamination
	G. Robertson
	Hon. P. Bell
	Status of Pacific Salmon Forum scientists
	N. Simons
	Hon. P. Bell
	Federal guidelines for pesticide use
	S. Simpson
	Hon. P. Bell
	Wages for child care workers
	C. Trevena
	Hon. L. Reid
	Government relationship with Nanaimo Family Life Association
	L. Krog
	Hon. T. Christensen
	Accessibility of VANOC business documents
	H. Bains
	Hon. C. Hansen
	Hon. G. Campbell

Tabling Documents		7757
	Property Assessment Appeal Board, annual report, 2006
	Hon. R. Thorpe

Committee of Supply		7757
	Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)
	K. Conroy
	Hon. G. Abbott
	A. Dix
	M. Sather

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		7783
	Estimates: Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts
	Hon. S. Hagen
	N. Macdonald
	J. Kwan
	G. Gentner

Hon. G. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, joining us today in the House are 20 visitors from University Hill Secondary School, a school in Vancouver–Point Grey. I actually spent 12 years of my life at University Hill Elementary and Secondary schools. They've come to find out what we're doing and why we're doing it. I hope we'll all make them feel welcome.

N. Macdonald: Joining us in the House are a number of people very close to me. One is Ann Hawthorne. She is, I think, from Toronto now but is originally from Winnipeg. As well, there's her close friend Margaret Dixon, who is my sister from Winnipeg, and my parents Murdo and Agnes Macdonald from Gimli, Manitoba. Please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. G. Campbell: I also hope that the House will make Logan Graham welcome. Logan is a very articulate spokesperson for the Children's Arthritis Foundation. He's also a young man with keen observational skills. He pointed out to some of my colleagues today that he saw me a couple of years ago. He said, "I've grown a lot in that time," and then Logan said: "And so has the Premier."

S. Hawkins: On behalf of Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce 30 Members of Parliament from ten different countries who are in Victoria attending a conference on parliamentary leadership. The participants are examining parliamentary leadership and participation in broad-based coalitions in the areas of political leadership, anti-corruption, conflict management, poverty reduction and parliamentary administration.

I would like to recognize the work of Dr. Rick Stapenhurst of the World Bank Institute, Mr. Andrew Imlach of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and Dr. Gregory Cran of Royal Roads University for their key roles in sponsoring this conference. Would members please help me make them all welcome.

B. Lekstrom: Today in the House we have Mitch Rivest, a navy lieutenant in the Canadian Forces, and his mother Sharon Rivest. On May 17, which is the one-year anniversary of the death of his Royal Military College classmate and friend Capt. Nichola Goddard, Mitch will be releasing from the military to focus on his work with GOAL in Afghanistan.

Mitch established a volunteer organization to raise awareness about the situation in Afghanistan and to raise money to build a school for girls in Afghanistan in honour of the work that his colleague Nichola was doing when she was killed.

Next week Mitch is going to launch kickoff events in western Canada. The goal of this ride is to go around the world. It's a self-financed ride that Mitch is taking on, and it's to raise $200,000 toward this worthy cause. Would the House please welcome both Mitch and his mom Sharon.

J. Nuraney: I too would like to acknowledge the presence of Logan Graham in the gallery today. Logan, at the age of four, was struck with severe arthritis. Now, at the age of 12, he has become a great advocate for the Children's Arthritis Foundation. He's accompanied today by Pam Sherwin. I would like the House to please make them both welcome.

B. Bennett: I know there are a lot of glum faces in the House after the defeat of the mighty Canucks last week. But I did want to stand today and give hope to the members in this House and just remind you that the winning goal for Anaheim in the overtime frame was scored by Scott Niedermayer, who happens to have been born and raised in Cranbrook.

The hit that set up that winning goal was by his brother Rob, who was also born and raised in Cranbrook. So I would invite all members to continue cheering for British Columbia. Cheer for the Anaheim Ducks and the Niedermayer brothers.

S. Hammell: In the gallery are two friends of mine. The first is Cathy Allen, a person that I have known for years and with whom I've travelled the globe, or parts of the globe, teaching the gospel of including more women in the political process — something that I think we could do here.

The second person is Stanly Tsao. Stanly was my former MA, and he is now her vice-president. Both Cathy and I are lucky to have worked with him. Would the House please make both of these quite remarkable people welcome.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Today in the gallery I would like to welcome special visitors from New Zealand. The hon. Chris Carter, Minister of Conservation, of Ethnic Affairs and of Housing, will be meeting with his B.C. government counterparts this afternoon. The minister is accompanied by his partner Peter Kaiser, principal of the Tirimoana Primary School, and his ministerial adviser Michael Gibbs. This is Minister Carter's first visit to British Columbia.

British Columbia and New Zealand share a lot of common history and many economic and cultural bonds. I ask the House to please make all our visitors welcome.

Hon. S. Hagen: Today in the precincts from the beautiful Comox Valley we have two groups of 33 students. That would be 66 students.

Mr. Speaker: Member, you could join the member for Nelson-Creston in the spelling bee.

Anyway, together with the 66 students we have some parents and also three teachers — Ms. Valerie Sherriff, Mr. Brad Fraser and Mrs. Lisa Perry. It was such a joy to meet with these students out on the front. You know, they were so anxious to see me and have their picture taken with me. I just hope some of that rubs off on the opposition.

Hon. L. Reid: I have the pleasure today to welcome Majors Bill and Winn Blackman, new leaders of the Salvation Army in British Columbia. They have 30 years of experience as officers in the Army and have lived in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Ontario.

It's somewhat bittersweet, because today we're also bidding the fondest farewell possible to Capt. Brenda Murray and Capt. John Murray, who are leaving British Columbia to take up residence with the Army in Ontario. They, I believe, have done enormous service for this province. British Columbians have absolutely benefited.

I would ask the House to welcome the new folks to British Columbia but certainly to bid the fondest farewell to those who are leaving us.

C. James: At some point in our lives most British Columbians will care for a loved one who is chronically ill, frail, elderly or has a disability. This week in B.C. we recognize the support and love these caregivers provide families through Family Caregiver Week. Family caregivers can face very difficult financial, emotional and physical challenges.

Often women, family caregivers must balance the competing needs of home, work, family and parenthood. They provide a wide range of physical, emotional and personal support often to the detriment of their own health and well-being. The unpaid contribution that family caregivers provide would cost the health care system billions more every single year. Without these caregivers, many patients in B.C. simply would not get the care they need.

That's why it's so important that organizations like the Family Caregivers Network Society in James Bay exist to provide support to people caring for loved ones at home. This not-for-profit society offers a wide range of services, including a lending library, workshops and support groups, to family caregivers throughout the lower Island. They provide a fabulous resource guide, and they offer practical tips on how to maintain health and wellness while providing care.

I ask this House to join me in acknowledging the work of this society and the invaluable contributions made by family caregivers throughout British Columbia.

R. Cantelon: It's been nearly 100 years since the steam engine first started running on the Esquimalt and Nanaimo railroad on Vancouver Island. For many decades — nearly a generation, really — from Victoria through Duncan to Nanaimo and parts north, that famous lonely whistle could be heard as the trains ran down the tracks. Parksville was one of the recoaling and water stations, and the train, amidst the clang of the bell and the cloud of steam, would stop at Parksville.

There was a beautiful park there. The passengers would disembark, enjoy the garden, reflect, I suppose, and perhaps eat some cucumber sandwiches and enjoy the day before getting back on and continuing their voyage. Well, those days, unfortunately, are long gone. For many years the water tower sat as a quiet reminder of those wonderful days of steam.

In the '90s they finally decided it was time to tear the old tower down, but a couple of people — Don Levins and Kevin Peters — decided to restore the old tank and did. They moved it to a new location and renovated it. For another five years nothing much happened until the Parksville Garden and Parkland Society decided to re-create that beautiful famous old garden.

In 2005 they began, and with their volunteers led by Louis Wall, they've been working at it for five years with the hope to have it finished by 2010. That will be, in fact, the 100th anniversary of those famous steam rail days.

I hope that all members will have another opportunity here — and I hope they take advantage of it — to visit Parksville when that park is completed, to go out and sit in the park on the benches and enjoy the beautiful scenery and the quiet reflection. Close your eyes, and maybe you'll hear that lonely whistle blow.

To all of those people who have worked so hard in making this happen and re-creating and helping us relive a bit of history, let's give them a warm thanks and congratulations.

R. Chouhan: This week is Mental Health Week. In his report called Out of the Shadows at Last, Senator Kirby said that one-fifth of the Canadian population is affected by mental illness. That means in British Columbia approximately 800,000 people are affected by this illness. The most common illnesses are schizophrenia, clinical depression, bipolar anxiety disorders and personality disorders.

Unfortunately, 75 percent of people suffering from mental illness never seek help because of lack of

knowledge or shame, and 63 percent of youth feel embarrassed and fearful about seeking help. Children with mental health concerns feel more comfortable talking to their friends about problems, but only one in six has sought service from a health professional.

Many people still believe that people suffering from mental illness are weak or bad. They're wrong. Mental illness is not a developmental disability, and it does not limit intelligence.

Like many other diseases, it is a medical disease. It's a real disease like cancer, diabetes and heart disease. Mental illness can be treated. Let's educate ourselves, our families, friends and co-workers to raise awareness. We must do everything to change attitudes and active stereotyping of mental illness. Let's reach out to those who need help.

S. Hawkins: Today I'm thrilled to say that cancer survivor and world cycling champion Lance Armstrong is launching a new community event to raise funds for cancer research at the B.C. Cancer Agency. The highlight of the B.C. Cancer Foundation Tour of Courage event is a community ride in Vancouver opened by Lance Armstrong on Sunday, September 23. This ride is for all recreational cyclists age 12 years and up.

A survivor of testicular and brain cancer, Lance Armstrong is known not only as one of the world's most admired athletes but also for his advocacy and leadership in championing the fight against cancer worldwide.

In a message delivered to our Premier, who is honorary chair of the B.C. Cancer Foundation Tour of Courage, Lance said: "I'm very pleased and excited to be coming back to British Columbia in September. To help out and ride again in your amazing part of the world will be very cool. See you on the bike September 23, and live strong."

The proceeds from this ride will support blood cancer research. Dr. Clay Smith — a senior scientist at the B.C. Cancer Agency, head of the bone marrow transplant program of B.C. and one of the doctors who helped save my life — will be leading this research.

In British Columbia every day, on average, three people are diagnosed with some form of blood cancer, which includes forms of leukemia and lymphoma. Treatments for these cancers can be very difficult, often with devastating side effects.

The B.C. Cancer Agency, as all members know, is renowned for its cancer outcomes. It's renowned also for treatments for blood cancers. Increased funding through the Tour of Courage will help a variety of programs to now work effectively together to conduct an all-out and coordinated attack on blood cancers.

I'm asking all of my colleagues to join me. Dust off your bikes. Get training for the community ride, and please encourage others to join us.

You can register at www.tourofcourage.ca. Let's all work together towards a world free of cancer.

C. Wyse: I rise today in the House to recognize three students from school district 27. These young people are our future, and I can tell you that our future is in very good hands.

This spring students from around B.C. are entering science fairs. While some of them have won awards, all of them have learned about their subjects and themselves as they carried out their scientific exploration.

A total of 220 students were selected for the regional fair in Kamloops. Twenty students represented school district 27, and 18 students returned home with gold medals. Only five students were selected to attend the national competition in Nova Scotia, and three of those five students are from school district 27.

Carley Redford is a grade 8 student at 100 Mile Junior Secondary. She did her project on a drug that is a serious problem — crystal meth. She hoped that through her project she could prevent even one or two students from trying this drug. As part of her project, Carley surveyed her entire school to determine her peers' knowledge of crystal meth. At the regional competition, Carley received the overall junior award and the biotechnology award.

Jennifer Rich is a grade 12 student at Williams Lake Secondary In her project titled "Sugar in the Shadows," Jennifer investigated the efficiency of various glucometers and analyzed the blood sugar levels of 15 subjects. Jennifer won a gold medal, the award for best project of all 220 entries, and four other awards as well as tuition for her first semester at Thompson Rivers University. Jennifer is going to the nationals for the fifth time.

Isabella Ruby is a grade 7 student at Kwaleen traditional elementary in Williams Lake. Her project was a study of wind energy and the efficiency of wind turbine design. She wanted to create an energy device that would not give off greenhouse gases, radioactive waste or toxic emissions.

I ask the House to join me in congratulating these young students who've demonstrated a bright future in science.

A. Horning: For those of us who have watched the movie Sideways, we must admit that we will never look at wine the same way we used to. One of the characters in the film told us how it is by saying: "We're going to drink a lot of good wine. We're going to play some good golf. We're going to eat some great food and enjoy the scenery, and we're going to send you off in style."

Sure sounds like the Okanagan, one of the greatest escapes in B.C. Kelowna-based Calona Vineyards is toasting 75 years in business — the oldest winery in B.C. Its longevity in the industry is an indication of how B.C. wines have made quite an impression here at home and on the international market.

Mr. Speaker, believe it or not, at one point B.C. wines weren't very highly thought of. But after years of being the underdog, B.C. wines are now touted as world-class and very high-end wines. Calona Wines was launched in 1932 by local businessman Cap Capozzi and the former B.C. Premier, W.A.C. Bennett.

Calona Vineyards has also been a longtime supporter of local artists in communities across B.C. A Call to Artists is an opportunity that provides a coveted showcase for any individual artist to get public recognition for themselves and their work on newly released wine labels created especially for the Artist Series wines by Calona Vineyards.

We couldn't go on about the wineries without mentioning the fact that the Okanagan Valley offers prime growing conditions, especially for Calona Vineyards in the southern valley of B.C. where the hot, sunny climate produces the finest grapes.

I would like to congratulate Calona Vineyards for their dedication to the fine art of winemaking. We toast them for keeping the tradition strong.

C. James: Earlier today a van transporting farmworkers was pulled off the road. The van's floor was littered with holes because it was so rotten. There were no seatbelts, and the seats were welded to sheet metal. The officer at the scene said that the seats and anyone in them could easily become projectiles in the event of an accident. He said that an accident involving this van would be more catastrophic than the tragedy that we saw two months ago. This van was operated by the very same contractor involved in the March tragedy.

My question is to the Minister of Labour. Can she explain why this contractor was allowed to get this unsafe van on the road and continue to put lives at risk?

Hon. K. Falcon: I want to thank the member for the question because I think it's an important one for all of us. The fact of the matter is that because we're continuing these inspections, we again today found a very serious violation by an individual who the member correctly points out is the same carrier. It is totally unacceptable, and we will be dealing with this situation and with this individual.

There's a legal process to deal with that, which I won't bore the member with. But I want the member to know that this will be dealt with in the swiftest, fastest possible way that we can do so, with our message to that individual carrier being this: they are not going to operate passenger transportation in the province of British Columbia unless they get it through their heads that they are going to do so in a safe, careful manner for the benefit of those that are being transferred.

C. James: Well, we heard those same answers from government two months ago when the tragic accident occurred. We heard then that things were going to occur so these vehicles would not be on the road.

The government only brought back roadside inspections after three women were tragically killed in an accident. It was this government who ignored the coroner's recommendations in 2003. The minister's announcements and the actions don't go far enough. The van pulled off the road today was run by the same contractor, and somehow this van passed a government-mandated inspection in this last year.

Again, my question to the Minister of Labour: how did this van pass a government-mandated inspection, and will she order an inspection of the entire fleet used by this contractor today?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think the member raises a very good question. In this House we all agree on the objective. The objective is that we don't want anyone in the business of commercial transportation who does not understand that they are going to be obligated. We expect them to use and utilize safe vehicles.

The fact of the matter is that this was detected as the result of a blitz that we instituted. We're going to continue, as I've said in the past in this House, to undertake these blitzes until such time as people realize there's no percentage in trying to operate with fleets or vehicles that are unsafe or unacceptable. We're going to continue to put the pressure on.

With respect to this particular carrier, he operates two vehicles. Both these vehicles have now been demonstrated to be of very poor quality and, frankly, are unsafe for the transportation of individuals.

I've made it very clear to my staff, understanding the legal framework and ensuring that there's fairness involved, that we are going to operate as quickly as we can to make this person understand that he's not going to be operating in the province of British Columbia in the manner to which he's become accustomed.

C. James: I wish this government had taken that same kind of action and had seen the same kind of urgency after the 2003 coroner's report. I wish this government had seen how important it was to actually inspect the vehicles before they go on the road, not after the fact. Vehicle inspections are fine, but this vehicle was on the road. Labour contractors are still using unsafe vehicles, and this contractor has been caught twice.

To the Minister of Labour: we believe that there may be more unsafe vans out there. As I said, roadside inspections are important, but inspections after the fact can be too late, as we've all learned with a tragic accident. What is the minister going to do to inspect the entire fleet, protect farmworkers and get unsafe vehicles off of our roads?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member needs to understand that these vehicles get inspected semi-annually. Every six months these vehicles go through an inspection process. Now, when it came to the attention of the government, as it frequently will within the commercial transportation business….

If we identify or become alive to the fact that there's a problem in a particular sector — whether it's taxicabs, whether it's dumptrucks, whether it's container haulers or, in this case, whether it's the transportation of farmworkers — we pay an inordinate amount of attention to that sector. We make it clear to them through very aggressive enforcement that they are going to be required to operate safe vehicles.

Frankly, I don't care what it's going to cost them or how inconvenient it's going to be to them. We're going to continue it until such time as they realize they're going to have to operate safe vehicles in British Columbia.

R. Chouhan: We have heard these answers many, many times over. We heard the same answers after the March 7 accident and days after the accident, but nothing was done. The harvesting season has already begun, and thousands of farmworkers are transported by these labour contractors in these unsafe vans.

How many deaths will it take before this government wakes up and stops these labour contractors from operating these unsafe vehicles? Do something, please — now.

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, Member, that's simply not the case. We've actually undertaken an extraordinary amount of activity to make sure that we don't have vehicles like this. That's why we did the inspection today. That's why we identified this vehicle.

I would add this. We've been very transparent. The moment we complete these inspections, we release that information publicly. We want to be very upfront and open about this. If there's not an improvement in compliance, we want the public and the opposition and everyone to know about that.

But I can tell you this. One of the good things that came out of that inspection today is that it would appear, at least up to this point — aside from this particular carrier — that there is a much higher level of compliance. That's exactly the kind of outcome we're trying to drive.

If we find individual carriers like this particular individual, who seemed to have a pattern of not caring or not doing what needs to be done, I can tell you that we'll make sure that they'll not be in business in British Columbia.

R. Chouhan: On March 15 the Minister of Labour advised the families of three farmworkers killed in that roadside accident on March 7 that all 29 recommendations that they tabled were reasonable. Two months later the minister has only taken partial steps, and she refused to ensure that those found guilty of removing seatbelts or operating without them would face criminal charges.

If this government is really serious about protecting farmworkers, when will the Minister of Labour implement all of the 29 recommendations, including criminal charges for those who choose to violate the law?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, look. The member needs to know that the reason why we've identified this particular carrier is because we were undertaking, again, surprise inspections.

We've made it very clear. In fact, I have made it very clear in this House and outside of this House to the industry that we are going to continue to do this. We will show up unannounced at the farmsites. We will stop them unannounced on the highways. We will do whatever it takes and keep that pressure on until such time as we see a compliance level that British Columbians and farmworkers not only expect but deserve.

C. Puchmayr: This rhetoric from the same government that had interministerial memos asking ministers not to inspect during the harvest season…. And now we're hearing this from this minister.

It's been two months since that horrific crash that killed three and injured 14 women, and four years since the coroner's inquest made those strong recommendations. What do we get from this government? A watered-down recommendation that doesn't come close to what we've proposed and doesn't come close to what the families proposed.

Will the Minister of Labour stand up and commit to this House that she will look into and answer to this House why this vehicle passed an inspection? How could this vehicle, not a year ago, pass an inspection that led to the findings that we found today?

Hon. K. Falcon: To the member's last point, that's a very legitimate question to ask. We've got auditors right now in the inspection facility making sure that the records are checked, that the inspection was done properly. We will do that. We always do that whenever we find a situation where there's a vehicle on the road that was inspected within the last number of months, which appears to have deficiencies. That's a matter of course in our ministry.

But the member makes the point as if nothing has been done, and that is simply false. The fact of the matter is that whether it's this sector or the dumptruck sector or the taxi industry or container haulers, if we identify that there is a problem in any particular commercial transportation sector, we focus our attention on those sectors until such time as we see compliance levels get to where they are.

We will continue to do that. That is actually the action the member is talking about. There will be continued action. There will be continued enforcement, and we won't let up until we see a safe industry again in commercial transportation for farmworkers.

M. Farnworth: Will the Minister of Transportation table in this House the reasons why that vehicle passed its inspection and was able to go on the road?

Hon. K. Falcon: I will be happy to make all of that information public. As I've said before in this House, there is no attempt here to try and hide anything, and there never will be. The fact of the matter is that when that audit is completed, all of that information will be made available.

We have no hesitation in saying that if there is an inspection facility that for whatever reason has not done their job or has not met our standards that they are required to keep and maintain, all that information will be made public. They will be held accountable, I can assure that member and this House.

G. Robertson: Yesterday we learned that fish farm feed produced in B.C. has been found to contain melamine, the same toxin that's been linked to the pet food recall. There are reports that this contaminated feed was shipped to salmon farms here in B.C. This conflicts with what the minister apparently stated earlier today, when he gave assurances that this contaminated feed had not been fed to fish in Canada.

Can the minister set the record straight and assure British Columbians that farmed salmon from B.C. is not potentially spiked with melamine?

Hon. P. Bell: To be clear, I have never said that it is not possible that there have been shipments of this contaminated feed to B.C. fish farms, contrary to reports in the media. What I can tell the member is that the CFIA and the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands are doing a thorough investigation of this right now to track down the feed sources. I'm also advised by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency that there's no risk to human health as a result of this particular product.

G. Robertson: Well, in terms of no risk, you can tell that to the dead pets of British Columbia. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency confirmed that a B.C. mill used contaminated feed from China — the wheat gluten from China — last July. Health Canada has said that this contaminated fishmeal was used in hatcheries, from the same mill. The minister's story changes by the hour. We have a new one here today.

How many salmon farms have been using these contaminated feeds, and what is the minister doing today to protect the people of B.C. from potentially contaminated farmed salmon?

Hon. P. Bell: The member obviously wasn't listening. What I told the member was that the CFIA has advised us that there is no risk to human health as a result of this particular product. It is very early in the investigation at this point in time.

We've been aware of the issue for something around 24 hours or a little less than 24 hours. We're working with CFIA to track down where all of this potential fish food went to, and certainly we'll be advising the public of any issues that we discover as a result of that.

N. Simons: My question is, again, to the Minister of Agriculture and Lands. The seven-member B.C. Pacific Salmon Forum was charged with examining the challenges facing the salmon resource and making recommendations to provincial government. The forum has received $5 million in funding from the provincial government and is supposed to report back this December.

Can the Minister of Agriculture please confirm or give us any information as to whether or not it's true that the top scientists working for the foundation have recently resigned?

N. Simons: Well, if the minister is not aware at this point, I'm sure the minister will soon be aware that in fact the scientists who have been charged with reporting to the forum have decided that their work, for one reason or another, is finished.

I'm wondering if perhaps the minister, when he finds out what's happening with the Pacific Salmon Forum…. Will he inform the House as to the reasons behind that?

S. Simpson: At the very time when consumers across our province and the country are getting increasingly concerned about levels of toxins that they're exposed to, the federal government has announced that it's about to increase the allowable levels of pesticides on fruits and vegetables sold in B.C. and across the country — and of our products.

This is a serious health issue. For example, in a 2006 study in the Annals of Neurology, which looked at the

relationship between pesticides and Parkinson's disease, they determined that those exposed to pesticides have a 70 percent greater risk of contracting Parkinson's.

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Will he oppose this proposal by the federal government to raise limits on pesticides use, or does he support the federal action?

Hon. P. Bell: We're aware of the issue the member raises. I have staff reviewing the proposal at this point. Certainly, we'll take those recommendations into account when we next meet at our federal-provincial-territorial meetings.

S. Simpson: This harmonization is being done to relieve what have been called trade irritants between the U.S. and Canada and is part of NAFTA's implementation. Resolving trade irritants is simply not a good enough reason to compromise British Columbia health and our environment.

Canada already has less than a sterling record on pesticide controls, allowing upwards of 60 active ingredients in the 1,130 pesticides that we use in this country — 60 active ingredients that are banned in other western industrialized countries.

My question again to the minister is: will he take a clear and unequivocal position on these pesticides, saying no to the federal plans and putting the health of British Columbians first?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm not aware that the member opposite is a biologist or capable of making the type of determination that he's asserting right here. I think I'll rely on the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands staff prior to making any recommendations to the federal government.

C. Trevena: Child care workers in Alberta are getting a wage increase and incentives to get them back into the workforce. That's the policy of that province's Conservative government. They've adopted it to deal with the crisis in child care in the province and ensure that child care workers have a living wage. In Alberta they're going to be earning about $17 to $20 an hour, compared to $10 to $13 an hour on average here in B.C.

I'd like to ask the Minister of State for Childcare whether she will commit to increase the pay of B.C.'s child care staff.

Hon. L. Reid: I'm always excited to talk about child care in British Columbia.

Hon. L. Reid: I have spent the last month touring child care centres in British Columbia and opening up in the last month probably 300 additional spaces. It's a $14 million investment. That's capital currently in the field and will generate an additional 1,400 spaces.

In terms of the member's question, the child care budget in Alberta is $126 million. This year in British Columbia we will exceed $260 million.

C. Trevena: I'm really pleased that the minister is excited to talk about child care. It would be more exciting if she committed to put money into helping child care workers to stay in the profession.

Our child care workers are earning about $10 an hour, maybe up to $13 an hour. In Fort St. John the Oil and Gas Commission workers committed to raise $20,000. The commission itself raised another $20,000 to start a child care centre so people could go to work and their children would be cared for.

They could not hire child care workers in that city because they couldn't afford to pay them. You could get paid more as a worker in Tim Hortons in Fort St. John than looking after children — a fully qualified child care worker.

I ask the minister one more time not to talk about the excitement of child care but to talk about the reality of a $10-an-hour job wage for a highly trained person. I would like to ask the minister of state whether she will commit to making sure that our child care workers get paid a living wage.

Hon. L. Reid: We're on the side of children and families in British Columbia. There are 9,300…

Hon. L. Reid: …registered early childhood educators in British Columbia today. Receiving subsidies to take part in advanced education, receiving bursaries to go forward in terms of advancing their education…. They believe in early childhood development in British Columbia. Perhaps the member opposite could take a lesson.

L. Krog: Nanaimo Family Life feels that this government's cutbacks have left them so strapped for cash that they can no longer deliver vital services to the community. They feel they have not been able to speak

publicly about this government's cutbacks before, because if they did so, the government might slash their funding. The minister…

It is the minister's response that is preposterous. The minister is ultimately responsible for the programs run by his ministry, and he is ultimately responsible for ensuring that service providers are not threatened for speaking their minds.

Can the minister assure this House that this type of bullying is no longer occurring?

Hon. T. Christensen: As I indicated yesterday, the suggestion is preposterous. Staff within the Ministry of Children and Family Development around this province work with local service providers to assist them in serving the children and families in communities right around the province. That's the commitment staff make day in and day out; that's the commitment I make day in and day out.

L. Krog: My question is not about the actions of just staff. It is about the climate of fear that this government's callous approach has created amongst service providers. I've spoken to the people at Nanaimo Family Life.

L. Krog: It was this government that laid off hundreds of front-line child protection workers. It was this government that has consistently underfunded services for children and families.

The president of Nanaimo Family Life Association and the executive director have said that their organization felt threatened. The minister says no.

The question to the minister is very simple. Who is wrong — Nanaimo Family Life or the minister responsible for children and families?

The budget for the Ministry of Children and Family Development this year is almost $1.9 billion. Our financial commitment has never been greater. Almost 200 front-line social workers were added to ministry staff last year alone. We're hiring staff, we're adding services, we're enhancing services, and we will continue to do that to better serve the children and families of British Columbia.

H. Bains: There are discrepancies between the business plan that was presented by VANOC yesterday and the Auditor General's report.

We're not getting the truth from this minister or anybody from that government side. In order to find the real truth, the taxpayers need to see the original interim plan that was rejected by this government and the minutes of the board meetings for the last two years.

Now, will the minister show this House that he will instruct VANOC to make those things available to the public today?

Hon. C. Hansen: …the news coverage this morning about the delivery of the business plan yesterday, what it really shows is that there is a tremendous success story in the making in British Columbia.

Hon. C. Hansen: I know that's particularly disturbing for the NDP, because we know that they don't like success in British Columbia. In fact, the only business plan that the NDP had when they were in power was their plan to drive business out of the province, which they succeeded in doing.

Hon. C. Hansen: Every aspect of the provincial government's involvement with the Olympic and Paralympic Games is subject to FOI. All of the expenditures that are made by the province with regards to the Olympics are part of public accounts. They're there for the scrutiny of the Public Accounts Committee, and that is actually the venue to which the member should be directing those questions.

H. Bains: If the minister is so confident of the work of VANOC, why doesn't he instruct VANOC to make those minutes and that business plan open to the public so we will see whether they are doing the right thing or the wrong thing?

Mr. Furlong was quoted in the media that it's not his mandate to deal with all of the other Olympic labour costs that were identified in the Auditor General's report. If it's not VANOC's responsibility, the minister should tell this House whose responsibility it is to tell the truth to the taxpayers.

Hon. G. Campbell: The opposition has spent their time attacking VANOC and attacking a business plan that everyone that knows anything about business plans says works. The opposition has spent their time pretending they support the Olympics and being against it. The leader has been against it. She's been consistently against it, and she never notices all of the benefits that are coming to British Columbia. So let's be clear….

Hon. G. Campbell: On July 2, 2003, British Columbia, Vancouver and Whistler in Canada were awarded the right to host the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The budget that we are obligated to pay to the IOC…. We will meet all of our obligations to the IOC for $600 million.

Hon. G. Campbell: I can tell you this, Mr Speaker. The Olympics create opportunities for British Columbia, they create opportunities for young British Columbians, they create opportunities for B.C. artists, they create opportunities for B.C. business, they create opportunities for B.C. athletes, and they create opportunities for a great future in British Columbia. And that's what we're for, Mr. Speaker. [Applause.]

Hon. R. Thorpe: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to present the annual report of the Property Assessment Appeal Board for the year 2006.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, in this chamber we'll be continuing with the estimates of the Ministry of Health, and in Committee A, the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts.

K. Conroy: This afternoon we're going to do the seniors issues around health care. As Seniors critic, I've had the opportunity to bring these seniors issues to a number of the ministries. Today in estimates I want to start by asking the minister specific questions in relation to the health-related recommendations from Aging Well in B.C., the report of the Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors Issues.

I was very impressed with the report and its recommendations. I think the council is to be commended on the excellent job they did in compiling this report. Also, I want to thank people who took time to make presentations, many of whom had to travel quite far and wide to be able to get to where the council was taking submissions, and many people who also wrote. I want to thank them for the efforts they took to make sure their concerns were heard. I think the final results are a good overview of what is and isn't working in B.C. for seniors — or older persons, as the report suggests we should use that term.

Of the many recommendations that were made, the government has chosen to begin the implementation of one of the recommendations, which is to eliminate mandatory retirement at age 65 with the tabling of Bill 31. It's a good start and one I'm sure we'll debate with the tabling of that bill.

But there are a number of other recommendations that have been made. I believe that they are the responsibility of this minister and that this ministry will have the responsibility for actually implementing these recommendations.

I also understand that a number of recommendations have been made that other ministries will have responsibility for and that the Ministry of Community Services has taken the lead role in ensuring all of the recommendations are seen to in the various ministries.

The one recommendation that I want to bring to attention today would be recommendation 3, which is to help people stay independent. They recommend that the government introduce a new, broader and more widely available home support system.

I want to talk a little bit about the home support system in B.C. I know the minister has made claims that they have increased services to home support, but studies actually show that B.C. has gone from 17 percent above the national average in access to home health services to one of the lowest in Canada. Services have shifted dramatically to clients with higher needs and have become more narrowly focused on medical tasks.

I think we can all agree that when we have a good home support system, it can end up saving money in the health care system. Home support workers with the proper support and time can identify problems. They can be proactive in determining needs of seniors and can prevent expensive hospital stays just by their visits to the clients and doing it on a regular basis.

There are a number of options the ministry could implement to meet this recommendation, but I want to start today by asking: will the minister commit today to increase funding for home support to ensure seniors who require only prevention and maintenance supports, such as meal preparation and cleaning to help them remain in their own homes, receive the services that they require?

Hon. G. Abbott: Let me begin by introducing the staff members that are joining us today. I do appreciate the excellent work that all of the staff here and in rooms elsewhere in the building and over on Blanshard Street and elsewhere are doing towards the successful completion of these estimates. I thank them all for being a part of it.

Gord Macatee is my deputy minister; on my left, Assistant Deputy Minister Andy Hazlewood; behind me in support, Rebecca Harvey and Manjit Sidhu, who also lead areas of public policy in the ministry.

The member introduces a number of issues in her opening statement, and I think it's important to make the record very clear in respect of what we have done with home care in this province since we took government in 2001.

Home care is a very important part of the delivery of health care in this province. We can certainly debate whether it's perfect. It's not. Is it very good? Yes, I think it is. Can it be improved? Yes, I think it can.

But make no mistake about it. Between 2001 and the present we have seen 8 percent more home care clients in British Columbia. That is, over approximately the last five to six years the number of home care clients has increased by 8 percent in this province. Today, in the current year budget, home care support is more than half a billion dollars in this province. It is a big part and a very important part of the health care budget.

In fact, we have seen anything but a cut. Over the period since the NDP left office and we took office in 2001 to today, we have seen an increase of 26 percent in the home care budget over that period of time — now, today, well over half a billion dollars extended to home care clients.

Further, over that period — again comparing 2001, when there was a change of office, to today, after about six years now in office — we have seen the number of hours that are devoted to home support clients increasing by 23 percent as well. Part of that is the acuity of the patients that they serve, and I think that's important to note — but a 23-percent increase in the number of hours per home support client.

So that is the context in which we are working today — more dollars, more clients, more hours. I think the system is working well. It can be improved. We are dedicated to continuous improvement in this area, as we are in every other area of health care delivery. The facts are very clear.

The member said: "Well, what about housekeeping services? Why don't we restore housekeeping services?" Well, the fact of the matter is that housekeeping services, by policy of the NDP provincial government of 1997, were eliminated. In fact, I have a quote here from Hansard from Joy MacPhail, who was the Minister of Health of that day, May 22, 1997. I'm happy to send over a copy of this to the member, just so it's clear to her. I want to quote Ms. MacPhail from 1997 in respect of home support: "We are no longer in the business of providing light housekeeping services. But if it is health-related, the client gets the service."

That continues to the present day. It was the policy of the NDP government of the day. It continues to be the policy today. We are attending to the health-related needs of the clients that we serve.

Now, the member may say: "Oh, we disagree with that. We have a different interpretation of all of that." Well, I don't know how you can have a different interpretation of the facts, because those are the facts.

If the member wants the most informed second opinion that one could ever seek or hope for, she should have a look at the recent report by the independent and widely respected Canadian Institute for Health Information. They very recently issued a report in respect of this. The Canadian Institute of Health Information — we'll call them CIHI from this point on. CIHI looked at the record of provincial and territorial governments all across Canada from the period from 1994 through to 2004, a ten-year period.

This tells a remarkably interesting story, Madam Chair, when one looks at it. If you look, for example, at those last years of the NDP government, from 1994 to 2001, when you aggregate all of the provinces and

territories across Canada, aggregate the increase in home care support that occurred in all of those jurisdictions, we saw the increase was 91 percent over that period from 1994 to 2001 — a 91-percent average.

How did B.C. compare? Well, not that well — a 25-percent increase over that period from 1994 to 2001. We were far below the provincial average in terms of those increases during those years. In fact, in one of those years we actually had — and this is the only time this occurred under any government through that ten-year period…. The only time we saw an actual cut during that period was a 5.9-percent cut in 1999 under the NDP government.

How does the B.C. Liberal government compare? Well, if you look at the average between 2000 and 2004: nationally an increase of 16 percent; British Columbia, by comparison, 36 percent. In fact, more dollars were going into British Columbia home care than was the case on the aggregated total from across the nation. In fact, British Columbia, through that 2004 period, had the second-highest increase for home care support of any jurisdiction in Canada.

Those are the facts. I know the members sometimes like to — at least the members on the other side — take real or other stories and claim that it is somehow indicative of a system that is underfunded. That is not the case. We are always looking for ways to improve, but I'm proud of what we've been able to do with respect to home care in this province.

K. Conroy: We have different figures, obviously. I'm going to put my figures on the record. A 24-percent drop in people receiving services between '01 and '05. That's a drop of services. The total number of hours that people are receiving has actually dropped by 12 percent.

I talk to people who are receiving home support, and they tell me that they don't receive as many hours as they used to. They don't receive the kind of care they used to. I'm talking in the last four or five years; I'm not talking in the last ten years. I'm talking in the terms that this government has been providing home support.

I'm talking to people who are getting it now, who are struggling because they're not getting the type of services that they need to ensure that they can stay in their homes and not be taking up an expensive bed in a facility somewhere in the province that's hard to access. I am talking about services now. I am talking to people who need those services and can't access them.

I'm talking to people who are low income, people who can't afford to pay for more than what they've got. I don't know if the minister knows, but something like 82 percent of home support clients last year had a pre-tax income of less than $15,000. So they get minimal home support, and then they can't afford to buy more. They can't afford to have someone come in and help with meal preparation. They can't afford to have someone help out with the small housekeeping duties that could keep them at home. That's what I'm talking about.

Yes, Joy MacPhail might have said what she said, but this is now. If you don't agree with it, why doesn't this government do something about it? If it was so wrong then, why don't you correct it now? You've had six years. This government's had six years to correct it. If it was so wrong then, why isn't it corrected?

Why do I still have people telling me they need these supports? They could stay in their homes longer. They can't afford the extra support they need.

So I'm asking the minister. Why can he not make a commitment to look at things like meal preparation, helping out, even giving a few more hours of time so that a home support worker isn't rushing in and rushing out, doing minimal nursing care as opposed to home support? People could stay in their homes longer, and we wouldn't have the type of situations that are occurring now in the province.

Hon. G. Abbott: What I always find unfortunate and regrettable is when we have a member saying, "Oh, you should do this," when in fact, when the same people were in government, they actually did exactly the opposite. Now, she may not like to hear the quote from Joy MacPhail in 1997 which articulated the fundamental change the NDP government had made in respect of the provision of home care services, but that was part of the record.

Between 1997 and when they left office in 2001, they followed through on that. They did exactly what Ms. MacPhail said they would do. They changed home care such that light housekeeping was eliminated from the equation. So she's saying: "Change it." Well, we're not going to change it. The provision of home care is taking a direction that we believe is appropriate. We have not changed that fundamental direction.

If the member is claiming now that their government, should they be elected in 2009, will fundamentally change it to restore housekeeping service, then she should say it. But she should also, in the same breath, say that her government was wrong between 1997 and 2001 when they made that fundamental change. I think people can always appreciate a change of direction. I think they are less appreciative of the hypocrisy of saying one thing and doing another. I think people are always unappreciative of that.

Now, I know it's important to have the facts here, so there are a number of facts, and I referenced CIHI. The member may want to look at the information from the Canadian Institute of Health Information, but the information I have from the ministry itself is also useful.

Home support is an income-tested program, and the member referenced how much income a lot of home care clients have. The fact of the matter is that approximately 73 percent of home care support clients do not pay a daily charge for the services they receive, another 4 percent pay up to $10 a day and approximately 9 percent pay between $10 and $20 per day. So it is a service that is geared to the low income, and that is precisely what it is doing.

To reiterate the point I made earlier, the number of hours over the past five years has now increased to about 380,000 home care hours across the province

every year. The number of average hours per client per year has increased by about 30 percent from 198 per client to 258 hours per client.

I should note as well, because I think this is useful information, that health authorities are introducing more innovative specialized care options such as intensive case management, quick response teams in hospitals, ambulatory home care nursing clinics, community health clinics for the frail elderly, respite hotels, home monitoring, implementation of technical assistance devices, and integrated neighbourhood networks that link health and non-health services in existing apartment blocks in the community. I think all of that speaks well to the fact that home care is a very high priority for our government. It is a very high priority for health authorities all across this province.

I think one of the most interesting, exciting and dynamic areas for health care delivery in the months and years ahead will be the closer integration of home care with primary care. I think that is an integration that is going to be fundamental to us meeting what is apt to be a huge demographic challenge as we see the progressive aging — again, on an aggregated basis — of our society. That's going to pose huge challenges to the system, and that closer integration of home care, primary care and residential care, particularly, I think, is going to be integral to meeting the challenge of an aging society.

We also, of course, have the challenges of chronic disease, many of which are associated with aging. Again, the integration of those elements — primary care, home care and residential care — is really going to be key to helping us meet the challenges of about the next 30 to 40 years, particularly as the baby-boomer generation that I'm a part of makes its way through the balance of their lives.

K. Conroy: Yes, 73 percent don't pay a daily charge, but they also are low income and can't afford to pay for anything else extra that they need. That's one of the problems: they don't pay for anything, but then they only get minimum services. People have expressed that concern.

I don't think this is just an issue that I am bringing as a member of the opposition. It's the third recommendation from this report, so it's a recommendation that's coming from the Premier's council. It's a recommendation that people made to the Premier's council. This is a recommendation that has come from across the province to the minister, and I'm assuming it is this minister's ministry that's going to be responsible for implementing this recommendation or for looking at it.

What I'm asking is: is the minister taking these recommendations of this report seriously? Are there funds within the ministry's budget to ensure that some kind of implementation of these recommendations can take place? Or is this just another report that's going to sit on a shelf and gather dust, which I think is a real shame considering the amount of energy and effort that's gone into this report?

I'll ask the minister again: are these recommendations going to be taken seriously? Will there be funds to look at implementing them?

Hon. G. Abbott: We will give serious, thorough review to all of the recommendations contained in Ms. Baird's report. I think she presented us with a thoughtful and comprehensive report, and we will provide a thoughtful and comprehensive response to those recommendations.

K. Conroy: The government managed to come up with a response very quickly to the mandatory retirement. I would only hope they can come up with a response as quickly to issues around health care, which seem to be critical to a lot of the people that presented to the council.

The minister did reference health authorities. I'm wondering if this year it's possible to get some expenditures reported out by the health authority, if there is any transparency around the continuing-care amount that's allotted to the health authorities for how much is actually allotted to home support.

Hon. G. Abbott: Courtesy the hard work of my staff, I am prepared to provide whatever level of detail the member might wish in respect of the breakdown among health authorities in this province around home and community care.

I will just start with the '07-08 budget numbers. I can go back and compare the numbers to every year from '01-02 forward to '07-08, but this will give you a sense for community — i.e., home — care, what the number is versus residential for each of the authorities.

Then, if the member wishes to dig a little deeper into this, I'm glad to give her comparative numbers from any year going backward as far as 2001-2002. Given the ingenuity of my staff, we probably could go back to 1954, if the member really sought something like that, but I'm sure she doesn't.

In terms of the Fraser Health Authority, the '07-08 budget: for community care, $197 million; residential care, $415 million — for a total of $612 million.

For Interior Health Authority: community, $139.4 million; residential, $274.2 million — for a total of $413.6 million.

For the Northern Health Authority: community, $32.4 million; residential, $58.8 million — for a total of $91.2 million.

For Vancouver Coastal: community sector, $145.9 million; for residential, $349.8 million — for a total in Vancouver Coastal of $495.7 million.

In Vancouver Island Health Authority: community, $118.4 million; residential, $252.7 million. So the total home-community care: $371.2 million on Vancouver Island.

The total for all of that for '07-08 is $1,983,700,000. That compares to $1,559,100,000 back in 2001-2002.

One of the issues that were also brought up around home support is the high demand, inadequate funding and the shifts to higher-needs clients. It has led to the deterioration in working conditions for home support workers. It also has an impact in the quality of care that clients end up receiving.

I know that there's been a lot of discussion around support to health care professionals, but I'm wondering what the ministry is doing to support community health care workers across the province.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member raises a very good point in respect of acuity for home care clients. I know some of this may be based on anecdotal observation, but clinical analysis would probably also support the notion that acuity is growing among home care clients.

In fairness, though, it could also be said that acuity is growing among those who are currently in assisted-living facilities. It is certainly growing among those in residential care facilities, and it is also growing in our acute care stream. All of that growing acuity right across the health care system is reflective of two things.

First, the aging demographic in our society. These are numbers for British Columbia. We have seen, just over the last decade, a move from about 8 percent of the population being 65-plus to now, today, probably about 13 percent of the population being 65-plus. As we move out another 20, 25 years, we will be seeing about a quarter of the population being 65-plus. So that has some very profound implications for the challenges that the health care system will face.

Some will say that we're not only getting older, but aren't we getting healthier as a society? In some respects, we are. Aging is not always symptomatic of additional health problems. But on an aggregated basis, if one looks at the health care consumption graphs for age groups 65-plus versus those in their 30s and 40s, there is often a very substantial increase on an aggregated basis in health care consumptions once you get out to your 70s, 80s, 90s.

By the time we're in our late 80s, typically we're looking at health care consumption about 20 times, on an aggregated basis, what we would have in our teens, 20s, 30s and salad years — those years that we fondly look back on, though I speak only for myself as a rapidly aging baby-boomer here.

The challenges of the health care system are going to grow as that aging demographic shift occurs in our society. The challenges to the health care system are also growing, because we have some chronic disease issues which are being more and more prevalent in our province as well.

The provincial health officer, for example, anticipates quite a staggering increase in the incidence of type 2 diabetes over the next decade. He reckons that we may see something akin to a doubling of that in the decade or two ahead.

That is a very daunting prospect for the health care system, because so much of the business of health care is driven by chronic diseases like diabetes. For example, a high percentage — I think something like 62 percent — of retinal surgeries are driven by type 2 diabetes. A majority of lower-limb amputations are driven by diabetes. Kidney dialysis and a whole range of illness, congestive heart failure — driven by type 2 diabetes.

All of these things, again, are symptomatic of the challenges we're going to face and go back to the comment that the member made, which is the greater acuity of the client population that we are serving today and that we will be serving in the decade ahead.

One of the things we have done — and the member may wish to canvass it, as well, later on — is try to build a stronger prevention agenda for the province through ActNow B.C., through active schools, through a range of programs that we hope will get more British Columbians being physically active for at least 30 minutes a day, getting more British Columbians having a healthy body weight that will be their greatest force against type 2 diabetes, quitting smoking, undertaking a number of changes. That will see us not only living longer, which British Columbians are already doing very well…. We really live longer than anywhere else in the world, both for men and women. We're doing very well in that regard.

Nevertheless, we are going to see those growing pressures year over year as the aging population makes its way and we get, on an aggregated basis, growing health consumption demand and growing aging and growing acuity in virtually every area of health delivery.

K. Conroy: That wasn't my question. It was a wonderful speech, but it wasn't my question. I asked: what is the ministry doing to assist the community care providers — the very people that are working within home support that are struggling to meet the needs of their clients and struggling within a constricted time frame that they can't…? Yes, the acuity is increasing, and they're not used to dealing with those types of needs.

What is the ministry doing to ensure there's support for these community care workers? There are not enough of them. They're struggling to make ends meet with the number they have. It's a struggle for the people that work in the sector, and that's what I was asking the minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: Neither I nor the staff who are with me here…. Effie Henry, who has some responsibility for the home care division of the ministry, has joined us here. We're not quite sure exactly what the member is looking for.

Importantly, I notice that previously, between 2001 and 2006, the average number of hours per client has increased by some 30 percent, from 198 hours per client to 258 hours per client. That, I presume, is part of the answer that the member is seeking.

Additionally, and I noted this previously as well, we are undertaking some very aggressive and substantial work with respect to primary care. The work in primary care is really aimed at supporting the home care clients by trying to provide them with best-practices advice around perhaps how to take care of

foot conditions. Perhaps it's to take care of a chronic disease like diabetes. Perhaps it's how to utilize exercise and diet as ways of better managing health challenges. All of those things, I think, are a big part of this.

Also, and I think the member would know this, we have increased the number of home care training programs in community colleges across the province. We know that we're going to need more home care workers in the future, and we're educating more. Most recently we have invested some $10 million on the redesign of curriculum for residential care workers to assist in addressing those with higher acuity. So the curriculum itself is being strengthened to reflect the fact that higher acuity caseloads are going to be a fact of the future.

K. Conroy: I think one of the problems is that the ministry puts the money into the health authorities, and the health authorities determine where the dollars go. There seems to be a disconnect. When we talk to people in different health authorities across the province that are actually getting service, that are providing the service, it seems that cuts to home support happen before cuts to acute care or emergency care — all the other things that take priority. Even though the ministry says it's putting money into continuing care, there seems to be a bit of a different story coming out of the various health authorities.

What I'm wondering is: where is the accountability between the health authorities and the ministry to ensure that the dollars are actually being spent on home care? I know the minister has provided levels of funding. But is it really being provided in home support dollars? Is it really being provided to clients in home support? What's the accountability procedure that the ministry has to ensure that?

Hon. G. Abbott: The ministry works in respect of the policy side of what we would like to see delivered in terms of home care. The health authorities actually deliver it.

The health authorities, as they are delivering the programs — the goals that are set out for them by the ministry and the government — have to follow through on what is set out for them in service plans, in redesign plans, in letters of expectation. There is a whole series of ways in which we encourage, support and direct, in some cases, health authorities to do the work that is necessary to have a high-quality health care delivery system in the province.

Perhaps the member has some specifics that she wants to advance around this. I can't say that I'm aware of a lot of instances where health authorities have deviated substantially from service plans in relation to delivery of programs in this area. If she knows of instances, I'm glad to hear about them and to follow up on them with the health authorities. But it surely is not practical to think that we could direct home care services out of Victoria, out of the Ministry of Health building on Blanshard Street. That is just not feasible or practical in any way.

We have to have partners at the regional level and from there down to the local level, who actually deliver these services and deliver them consistently with the goals, and so on, set out in service plans and elsewhere.

K. Conroy: I was asking about the accountability and what the ministry had in place to ensure the accountability.

I want to move on to another recommendation that the report made, and it's a recommendation that we've been asking for since 2005. It's one that the government hasn't been able to deliver on, and that's around providing sufficient residential care beds. We should get this one over with fairly soon in this process. I think that the provision of sufficient long-term care beds is long overdue. We certainly don't have the 5,000 that were promised.

Now the numbers keep changing. I'm not sure what the newest net number is. It was 600 last October, and now I think it's around 1,500. We might as well just get this out on the table right now and get it over with.

How many net residential care beds — not assisted living, not supported housing but new net residential care beds — are actually opened and running, not being built or planned for? I would just like to know how many net beds are up and running in the province today.

Hon. G. Abbott: The B.C. Liberal government set out in the campaign of 2005 a commitment to complete 5,000 incremental residential care and assisted-living units by December of 2008. I use the phrase "units" advisedly. These are not beds; these are homes that people enjoy. These are typically beautiful units. I've had the pleasure of opening a significant number of them, formerly as Minister Responsible for Housing and today as Minister of Health.

We have come a long, long ways from the old nursing home model of multi-bed wards, narrow hallways, insufficient washrooms, doorways too narrow to access by wheelchair and facilities that didn't meet building codes. We have come a long ways. We see today, of the units that we have remediated…. That's now very close to 5,000 remediated units — that is, stock that was not meeting the specifications of today.

We see really beautiful one-bedroom and studio apartments that are an enormous improvement in every way over the stock that we would have seen as recently as the 1990s. So we've made a huge commitment there, not only through remediation.

One of the things that we devoted a lot of attention to in the early 2000s was the remediation of thousands of units. As I say, it's about 5,000 or more — perhaps close to 6,000 — remediated units since we took office in 2001.

We also committed, as I noted, in the 2005 election to having 5,000 incremental residential care and assisted-living units by December of 2008. We have been working tirelessly on that. We have been working tirelessly with the health authorities across the province to deliver on those units. It represents a huge

budgetary expenditure on the part of the provincial government and the health authorities as we move to put those 5,000 net new units into place.

These are not remediated units; these are net incremental new units. I'm happy to advise the member that her persistent questioning has led me to reveal this number, which I've never revealed to the world before today…

Hon. G. Abbott: …and that is — drum roll — 3,196 net new beds or units as of today.

That is great news. I'm sure the member would agree that 3,196 net new units is tremendous news for the vulnerable population that these units serve. These are aimed at the frail elderly and aimed at providing them with all of the residential, dietary, social, recreational amenities and supports that they will need to be able to live the kind of lives that they deserve.

I'm tremendously proud of the investment that has been made by this government on these now over 3,000 net new units. We will see thousands more as we move through 2007 and 2008, and I am entirely confident we will be successfully completing the commitment that we made to have these units in place by December of 2008.

K. Conroy: What I'd appreciate is if I could get in writing on paper — and not take up time today in estimates — where those new net beds are in the province, related to the health authorities — where they are situated. Across the province 3,000 new beds might seem like a big drum roll number, but when you get to communities that don't have enough beds and have not got new net beds, it's still an issue out in the province as far as beds go.

The other issue is the bed formula that the government is still using. The government and the health authorities are still using the formula of 75 residential care beds for 1,000 seniors aged 75 years and older. The question I get asked all the time — and I am putting it to the minister — is: how was this formula developed? Why is it being implemented? It's one of the lowest ratios in the entire country, and we see the results of it because that's the ratio that health authorities are using.

I know that the Interior Health Authority uses it. It's a number that doesn't work well in rural areas and other areas as well, as we know that there are people waiting for beds. So I'd like to know how this formula was developed, why it's being utilized and what the rationale is for it.

Hon. G. Abbott: The number of units per 1,000 population is a guideline. Our expectation is that the health authorities will look at the demographics, the medical histories and any other factors they believe to be relevant in terms of fine-tuning that guideline. But it is that.

It's always easy, I guess, to take some mythical place of the future and compare the contemporary reality to it and say that it's not as it should be. I think the reality that we really should compare it to is the record of what we saw ten years ago.

What we saw was a lot of decaying residential care facilities across the province. There was not yet, astonishingly, what we today call assisted living except for some in the private sector. The NDP government of the day hadn't yet come to appreciate the value of assisted living. The residential care stock was deteriorating. Some of it did not meet the standards even of that day.

We have made a tremendous investment in this area. We have made huge investments, and even larger on a comparative base to what occurred in the 1990s. Again, I'm very proud of what we've been able to do. I know that the member may disagree with it, but we've come a long, long way.

The member asked about the health authorities. In terms of the changes in residential care, assisted living and supported housing, we see the numbers growing in every health authority. They're numbers that have never been seen before in the history of the province.

We know that we're going to have to keep building in this sector. The demographic change that I articulated in a previous answer is not going away. We know that we have to keep building. But we made a commitment, we're meeting that commitment, and I'm proud that we're meeting that commitment.

K. Conroy: I appreciate that it's a guideline. Then I would wonder why guidelines for the rest of Canada are higher. The guideline for the national average is 103 beds. Why is B.C.'s guideline so low?

Hon. G. Abbott: It is not possible to take one particular component of a health care delivery system in one province and say that it is necessarily going to be a figure that is comparative to something that occurs in a health care delivery system in another province. One would have to look at how all of the issues are managed on health care delivery in those provinces to really make an adequate comparison of whether the jurisdiction is doing it well or not.

There are a whole range of health care delivery issues that may come into play with a particular patient, client or frail elderly person. We would have to compare the residential care stream and the assisted-living stream. We'd have to compare supportive housing facilities that are available. We would have to look at home care. We would have to look at the acute care setting. We'd have to look at the primary care setting and what's offered there. We'd have to look at all of the range of programs offered in jurisdictions and then really try to compare how effective that health care delivery system was in the aggregate of all that.

I'm pleased to say — and I know I've said this earlier in estimates, but I'll repeat it for the member here today — there have been a number of comprehensive analyses done comparing health care systems in British Columbia with health care systems in every other provincial and territorial jurisdiction.

The most comprehensive of those was the Conference Board of Canada report, which showed that when

you look at all of the indicators…. The Conference Board of Canada report looked at 119 different indicators of how effectively the health care system was being delivered.

They looked at all of those 119 and concluded, based on a comprehensive analysis of those, that British Columbia had by some considerable measure the best health care delivery system in Canada. That was the Conference Board of Canada. We didn't pay them to produce the report. The Conference Board of Canada is a prestigious and certainly independent organization, like the Canadian Institute for Health Information. They said that British Columbia had the best health care delivery system.

Whether you're a senior with a chronic disease, or whether you're 19 years old, you've had an accident, and you need to have your leg fracture repaired…. Whatever the experience, whatever the age, British Columbia has a very good health care system, and that includes the services to the frail elderly.

K. Conroy: I'd point out that the Conference Board of Canada report was based on stats from early 2000, when we were under an NDP government. So, yeah, you can brag about those stats all you'd like, all the minister would like, but those stats were actually garnered under an NDP government.

One of the issues that has also come up around residential care is around the type of care in facilities. We've had a number of issues over the past year with seniors who can't be housed together, couples who can't be housed together in the facilities because of the change to the level of acuity — the level of care within facilities.

I recognize that it's a difficult situation. I want to know if the ministry is looking at any type of regulation changes so that couples who have different levels of care can be housed in the same facility, so that we don't have the situation we've had. We've had couples from across the province — couples from the lower mainland, from the Okanagan, from the interior, from up north, from Vancouver Island — who have had to be separated because they had different levels of needs and couldn't be housed within the same facilities.

What I'm asking is if the ministry and the minister have any future of changing the recommendations that determine the level of care and the needs in those facilities.

Hon. G. Abbott: Let me begin by returning briefly to the Conference Board of Canada issue. I know that the opposition Health critic at one point issued a press release, which claimed that the good numbers that were present in the Conference Board of Canada report related to the performance of the NDP government and delivery of services prior to 2001.

We looked at the press release which the opposition Health critic had undertaken. He was incorrect. In fact, what all of the data assembled by the Conference Board of Canada shows is that from 2001 on, those indicators improved and improved considerably, moving forward from 2001 to the time the report was issued. So the member was incorrect. Nice try, but he was incorrect in respect of that claim.

In terms of the issue of separated seniors, this is a very important issue and one which often touches us as human beings as we get older and as our parents get older. In my case, my father had a series of strokes at age 79, was incapacitated by those strokes and had to spend the balance of his life in a residential care facility in Salmon Arm.

My mother, who was five years younger than him, was in perfect health at the time of his strokes. Of course, as a consequence, she was neither prepared — nor would she have appropriately been able — to move into the residential care facility with my father. They were separated by the medical circumstances that occurred at the end of their lives.

There are always going to be instances where couples are separated by medical circumstance at the end of their lives. It is part of the reality that we live with in our lives. That having been said, what we have undertaken as a government to do is try to minimize those cases in which that occurs.

There are many, many instances around this province where couples are living together in assisted living. There certainly are a number where they are living together in residential care facilities, and that's good. Health authorities and the ministry go out of their way in every circumstance to try to ensure that couples that can be together remain together, whether it's together in a particular residential care or assisted-living facility, or the construct that I am particularly proud of — the building of the campuses of care.

That's where we'll have a facility that may have, on the low-acuity end, supportive seniors housing; at a slightly higher acuity, assisted living; and then residential care at the highest acuity. The new model for a continuum of care today is having that campus of care so that as we age, we can age in place.

We also have the opportunity that if one of the partners has a turn for the worse medically and requires 24-7 complex care in a residential care facility, they are able to access that. Hopefully, again in the campus-of-care model, we have the other spouse perhaps continuing to live in assisted living and able to visit on a regular basis with their spouse in the same campus of care. It is not like living together at home necessarily, but it is as close as we can reasonably come when couples have dramatically different care needs.

How successful have we been in doing that? Well, I think that the best evidence is this. In August of 2001 some 307 couples who had care needs were located in different facilities. In December 2006 those 307 couples had been reduced to 35 married couples located in different facilities. So there are still some where there is a separation, but it has been hugely reduced over the past few years.

We will continue to work on that, and as more of those campus-of-care units come on, the health authorities will have more options. But compared to

K. Conroy: Well, for sharing about parents, I'll share a story about my mother, who was a marriage commissioner in the '90s and married a number of people that lived in residential care facilities. They were facilities where they had the ability to have multiple needs within those facilities so that couples could be together. That is something that was in the '90s. It happened, and it worked well. When I go around and look at facilities now, they do not have the ability.

We hear of the stories where couples can't be housed together. I'm sure the Kreklau family of the Okanagan wouldn't agree with you. I mean, their mother and father couldn't be kept together because of different needs. The facilities couldn't accommodate them.

What I'm saying to the minister is that I'm hoping that there can be funding or that it can be looked at for ways to ensure that couples can be kept together, because it's not for a long time. Quite often for these couples it's near the end of their life, and it's for a short time. I think we should be able to accommodate that.

I also want to point out that the campus-of-care concept is a great concept, and I've talked to groups around the province who are struggling to get funding to enable them to have a campus of care. They're looking at having assisted-living facilities, supported housing with the residential care, and health authorities won't talk to them. There's no funding for that. Although it's a great concept, there's no funding to ensure that concept happens.

While we can say that this is something that needs to happen, until there's actually funding there for facilities to implement that kind of care, it's really a moot point. So unless the minister is able to share with us numbers somewhere within the ministry where organizations that I've been meeting with will now be able to come and resubmit applications. They will be able to get funding for the residential care portions of their co-ops that they're trying to build. They've got the assisted living. They've got the supportive housing. What they're looking for is funding so they can do this campus of care.

I would love it if the minister could provide numbers as to the availability of funding for these various groups across the province to be able to access.

Hon. G. Abbott: I guess it's always easy to be critical when one isn't comparing to one's own record. I find it remarkably disappointing. When we have made the investment in remediation of thousands of units, when we have added incrementally now 3,000 additional new units in the province, when we have made an unprecedented and historic investment in residential care and assisted living in this province, the member says: "Oh. Well, there's no money there." That's simply not true.

There is probably more money being invested in this area in a single year now than there was during the entire decade that the NDP was in power. We're making a huge investment in this area. For the member to suggest that somehow the health authorities aren't talking to groups, aren't supporting groups, is utter nonsense. It simply isn't true.

If you look at the numbers in terms of the number of millions by category in 2001-2002, which reflected the situation when we took office, half a million dollars was invested in assisted living. In '07-08, it's $60.9 million. In residential care it was $1,158,800,000 when we took office, and today $1,350,500,000 is invested in it. There's a huge investment being made this year and every year under our government in residential care and assisted living. We have come a long, long way.

I know that proponents throughout the province can work with health authorities. They can work with B.C. Housing. There are great innovative partnerships that are occurring right across the province. People can go onto the B.C. Housing website and see what they can do. They can go to the health authority websites and see some of the exciting projects that are completed or under construction, or look at the page that talks about the request for proposals for even more of those units. There's a tremendous amount being done.

We're building that campus of care across the province. Every day, as we open up more units, more opportunities occur to reunite previously separated couples. Again, it's not going to be in every instance. I remember the members complaining about an instance where a couple was in the same campus of care, but the one spouse had to travel partway across the facility to see his spouse because the spouse required 24-7 complex care. I think in fairness, the health authority is doing pretty darned well in having the couple together as much as possible in an instance where the care needs are dramatically different.

I'm not going to accept the unfair criticism that is being levelled at health authorities here, because it just isn't fair. Nor does the fact that approximately 10 percent of the people who are separated today…. It's about 10 percent of the number that was the case when we took office. We've made huge progress in this area. I wish the member would acknowledge it rather than disparaging the efforts of the health authorities as they attempt, I think in a very human and effective way, to deal with this difficult part of people's lives.

K. Conroy: Just to clarify, I'm not complaining. The couple I referred to and that was very publicly referred to…. The minister has his facts wrong. I just want to put it on the record.

The couple lived in a community where one member had to live in one facility on the other side of town. The family had to pay for the mother to be transported to visit with her husband every day. They were not in a campus of care. They were not in the same facility. That was who I was referring to. So I'm not complaining about issues. I was just stating a fact of a very sad situation that a family had to suffer through.

I also want to look at the report where it has a recommendation around recognizing informal caregiv-

ers in this province. I think the Ministry of Health saves substantial dollars by the efforts that are provided by informal caregivers. I meet with people regularly. The Leader of the Opposition today talked about it being caregiver week and the recognition that we give to those people who provide care in their homes to their loved ones, family members.

I know how difficult it can be to care for a loved one at home and what struggles one goes through in trying to ensure that the family member does stay at home. I think what the report is recommending is that the caregivers need support. Quite often a week of respite, day care once a week and sometimes substitute care in the home can lead to substantial savings in the long run. It can prevent caregiver burnout.

I talk to caregivers who are quite often are on wait-lists for respite care. Usually, when you need respite care, you need it fairly quickly. It's difficult to have to endure a wait-list. I'm wondering if the ministry will take this recommendation seriously and if they've actually budgeted for money to support informal caregivers. Or is there a future plan to budget to ensure that informal caregivers get the support they need?

Hon. G. Abbott: Just for the record, in the example I gave, I was not talking about Mr. and Mrs. Kreklau. I'm very familiar with the case of Mr. and Mrs. Kreklau. The member's comments with respect to that are more or less correct. But I wasn't referring to the Kreklaus; I was referring to a case in the lower mainland in discussing that.

In terms of the member's comments with respect to caregivers, I think they are appropriate and valid comments. Caregivers play a hugely important role in health care. It's an informal role in health care, perhaps, but it is a vital role in health care. We don't want to take those caregivers for granted in the provision of health care.

We are taking steps to try to recognize the important role and the very significant challenges that are faced in the lives of caregivers as they give so much of their lives to another. It may be a spouse; it may be a parent.

The home and community care services currently provides respite services to caregivers in the form of adult day centres, and approximately 75 percent of clients live with the caregivers. So adult day centres are one way that we can provide respite to the caregivers. We're trying to build our capacity around adult day centres as well. But also we're looking at home support services, short-term stays in residential care and respite hotels as examples of how we can take some of that burden off of the caregivers.

Also, I'll note that there is a new home care assessment tool introduced by all health authorities about April 2005 which provides better information to clinicians about caregiver burden and will assist in developing care plans for patients that take into account the need for caregiver support.

We are cognizant of the challenges that face caregivers, and we're wanting to support them additionally in a number of ways.

K. Conroy: One of the other recommendations, and I know that this has nothing to do with the Ministry of Health…. But what I'm asking is: how will the ministry work with the Ministry of Finance to ensure that there are sufficient incomes for older persons?

One of the things we've discovered when we've talked to seniors, one of the biggest barriers to a healthy lifestyle, is a low income. So by supporting this recommendation from the report, I think it behooves the minister to acknowledge that it would actually save money to the Ministry of Health in the long run.

I'm wondering what the minister's stance is on ensuring that sufficient incomes for older people are a recommendation that will be dealt with.

Hon. G. Abbott: One of the things I try not to do is to stray into the ministerial responsibilities of my colleagues. I'm often particularly reluctant to do that when it comes to the Minister of Finance, because she invariably presents these issues in a much more articulate and effective way than I could ever hope to.

However, I would note — and I hope, again, that I'm not too far off the mark in respect of those things — that our government, and certainly supported by the Minister of Finance, has undertaken a number of steps to improve the lives of seniors. For example, the seniors supplement is an important piece in building support for low-income seniors.

The increases and the expansion of the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters program were very important. One of the things that I as Housing Minister, or former Housing Minister, worked at for a couple of years was the extension of SAFER to mobile home owners, and that has been very important to the many thousands of seniors who live in mobile home parks.

Tax policies generally…. Again, I'm not going to go in detail here, but the aim of our government has been to ensure that we have a tax regime in this province that has low-income British Columbians paying the lowest taxes in the nation of Canada. We're very proud of that. In fact, the income taxes, generally speaking, for low- to mid-income British Columbians are the lowest in the nation. All of these things, I think, are very important in ensuring that our frail elderly enjoy an exceptional quality of life in British Columbia.

K. Conroy: I'd point out that the initiatives the minister talked about were all in place before this report was put out and written. These are additional recommendations that the report is making to the government. It's one that I'm sure that the minister will have a look at.

One of the other recommendations that they made was around the recommendation to appoint a minister of state responsible for seniors or a secretariat responsible for aging and for that minister of state to not be

underneath the umbrella of the Ministry of Health. So it was actually a stand-alone minister of state for seniors. I'm wondering what the minister's reflections are on that recommendation.

Hon. G. Abbott: My reflections would be that the Premier has taken care of that particular recommendation by having in the person of our Minister of Community Services the Minister Responsible for Seniors.

K. Conroy: I'll point out that that minister was there when that recommendation was made. The people that report to the council and the council itself determined that there was a need for a stand-alone minister of state or secretariat for aging, and that the needs weren't being met by the existing ministry for seniors.

I want to move on and talk a little bit about what's happening in the long-term care facilities across the province. In discussion with various providers…. I've talked to them and I've had the input that over the last three to four years, care providers are facing significant changes to the type of clients that they serve, which we've discussed — the acuity and the needs of clients. Also, around the framework of their funding…. People have expressed concern that facilities are not able to deliver the level of care and staffing that is required, and they're concerned that that is putting clients at risk.

They've also talked about the cost pressures that result in staff having insufficient time to meet residents' needs and staff virtually…. One of the comments made to me was that they've been run off their feet.

There are a number of historical issues that they're concerned about, and they feel that some of the funding issues are historical. Facilities have talked about the fact that they're not funded for services like rehab services, specialized services like occupational therapists, physiotherapists, speech pathologists, social workers.

In fact, I attended a fundraiser where a facility in Vancouver was raising funds to ensure that they had a horticultural therapist. It had been shown by doctors and many other people how successful the program was for the seniors in the facility. They were healthier, and it was just an excellent program, but there were no funds in order to provide that type of service. These aren't frivolous services; these are much-needed services.

There are a number of other issues that the care providers have raised. These represent care providers from all ranges across the province, from non-profit to non-denominational. There are private providers. There are large providers, small providers. They are represented across the entire province.

The major concern that they expressed is when health authorities are requiring proponents to submit proposals for new facilities, they are required to include in their proposals that there are 2.8 hours of direct care provided to clients in facilities. Existing facilities are having trouble providing even 2.8 hours of direct care. They are lucky if they can provide 2.2 hours; 2.4 was the average that was shared with the many providers. Many of those providers have also said that 2.8 hours aren't enough, that it isn't doing the job. But there is not a level of commitment so that all of the facilities can have at least 2.8 hours of care.

What I want to ask the minister is: is the ministry prepared to commit funding to all facilities so that all facilities can have at least a minimum standard of 2.8 hours of direct care?

Hon. G. Abbott: Some of the suggestions and the arguments being made are remarkably similar to those that are made by the B.C. Care Providers Association. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the hours cited and so on might be precisely those that have been advanced in numerous consultations with the B.C. Care Providers Association. I'm not going to negotiate contractual changes with the B.C. Care Providers Association in the context of estimates, but I will talk about some of the general issues the member raises.

Among those issues, and we talked a little bit about this previously, is the issue of the growing acuity of the client population. In our previous exchange on this, I observed that yes, we were seeing growing acuity or growing care needs in every area of health care delivery, and without a doubt that was a reflection of the changing demographics and the growing incidence of chronic diseases in our British Columbian society.

To be entirely fair, though, around the issue of acuity, the way the system would manage the issue of growing acuity is through assessment tools. If there is an apprehension that the acuity level of a particular individual is growing, that they may be in need of a higher level of care than they are currently receiving, then that is the purpose of the comprehensive assessment tools which are designed to effectively identify what the care needs of a particular individual may be. Those assessment tools are our best in terms of managing growing acuity in assisted living, in residential care and I guess sometimes in acute care as well.

I think in fairness, I would also say — I suppose you know — that there may be a validity to a whole range of arguments that are advanced by the B.C. Care Providers Association. I've met with them before, and I'm sure I'll meet with them again. I'll hear their arguments and consider their arguments in respect of their needs and wants. But I think, in terms of the facilities they are operating, they are a world different than what was in place in the past.

I think one of the best examples I've seen — and it's just a few blocks from here — is the James Bay Care Centre. Less than a decade ago the James Bay Care Centre was a group of multi-bed rooms — narrow hallways, dark, very few recreational social amenities, in very many ways a substandard facility. It had, I think, about 220 residents before its remediation.

What we did with a very substantial investment was to eliminate most of the multi-bed wards and create private rooms. There are still a few multi-bed or

two-bed rooms so that couples can stay together in the facility, but for the most part, they are private rooms.

There have been enormous enhancements of the social, recreational, dining and other amenities in the James Bay Care Centre. I think we've come a tremendously long way in terms of providing the kind of physical facilities where people can really thrive in the latter years of their lives.

Yes, I'll always be prepared to look at people's arguments about why they should be funded for this or why they should be funded for that, but we have built a model where I think we are able to maximize the opportunities that people have to really optimize the social, recreational and the spiritual side — I suppose all the aspects — of the latter years of their lives.

K. Conroy: What I'm hearing the minister say, in a long-winded way, is that the answer is no. There is no commitment to ensure that there'd be a minimum standard of care to facilities across the province.

I think there's another issue the B.C. Care Providers raised. They surveyed all their members, and there was a question of why some members would receive $130 a day, while others would receive $190 a day — when they're all caring for complex care patients. The clients that they're taking care of, the residents, are all complex care, so there was some concern about the disparity in costs.

As far as a lot of people could determine, it seemed to be historical. If you were unfortunate enough to be in a couple of years ago, you got that contract; if you got a newer contract, you got more — or vice versa. There were differences in the funding, and they wanted to know: what's the disparity in this funding?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for her question. The member's question was why there is a variance in the per diem within and among health authorities. I think she referenced in some cases $130, in some cases $160 and in some cases $190. That's true. When one looks across the system, there are some different per-diem rates that are operating.

Generally, and I underline "generally," health authorities are looking to try to get facilities on to a fully common set of standards and a fully common per-diem rate, but it's challenging. We have different facilities, obviously. Those facilities have different ages, in terms of when they were constructed.

They have different cost structures, different client bases and different real estate costs. There's a whole number of ways in which their experience will vary. Further, these are contract numbers. The care providers in question would have bid contracts at $130, or they may have bid them at $150, $170 or $190, and they were successful at that number.

Again, I appreciate that the member is articulating the concerns of some members of the association — and fair enough. I understand the case they are making, but I hope the member understands that we are not necessarily talking oranges and oranges here. There are quite dramatic differences at times in what is being provided — the number of units and all of that. There can be great variation, and as a consequence, it is challenging to try to close the gap to one common per-diem number for all health authorities.

K. Conroy: What I understand the minister to say is that for an older building that might need a lot of renovations because it's been around for a long time, as opposed to a brand-new building that's well maintained because it's brand-new and only been built in the last few years, there would be a difference in funding based on that. By my calculation, I would think that the building that needs work and renovations would receive more funding as opposed to the brand-new facility, but in fact the opposite is happening.

If they negotiated a contract without the rates you're saying, they actually are receiving less. So we have non-profit societies that can't afford to put a new roof on, that have a substantial number of beds in their facility but can't do the renovations needed to upgrade their facility because of the contract they negotiated.

If there is a formula, is there not a formula across the province that should be used? Shouldn't there be consistency in the health authorities across the province that can look at these issues so that you are comparing apples to apples because everybody is providing complex care services? I think it's bizarre that a formula can be derived provincially in the early childhood education field, for instance, but can't be derived in the complex care field. It just doesn't seem to make sense.

There is concern because there is no consistency cross the health authorities. In fact, within the health authorities, the survey showed there was no consistency. So is there going to be a formula that will be developed so that there can be some consistency across the province?

Hon. G. Abbott: The aim of what we do at the ministry and the aim of what we do at the health authority level is to attempt to ensure that there is a common and consistent standard of care that will be enjoyed by clients at the residential care level. We try to build consistent standards and consistent principles around that so that the clients do enjoy the level of care which we contract for.

Again, it's not that we say: "You have to do this, health care provider." The health care providers bid on the opportunity to provide these services, and they bid at a rate that they set out in a contract bid, generally speaking. Would it be good if we had, right across the board, an entirely common standard and we had an entirely common per-diem rate and so on? I guess, hypothetically, yes. Is that going to be possible? Well, that's a challenge.

If we look at some of the efforts by health authorities to achieve that, what one finds, and the member may be surprised or perhaps astonished by this…. As health authorities attempt to move to a common rate, what we often commonly find is that the providers would prefer to see the common rate concluded at the

highest available rate, rather than the lowest available rate. That becomes, then, a financial, fiscal challenge to the health authorities and to the provincial Ministry of Health that funds the health authorities.

Perhaps the member has some wisdom that she could share on this as to how we might go to a common rate that doesn't default to being the highest rate that exists among all of the providers, because that's so often what people are most comfortable with — defaulting to the highest rate, as opposed to defaulting to the lowest rate. But I know she's had some conversations with the providers, so perhaps she can share whatever wisdom she has gleaned around how we might proceed to achieve that objective?

K. Conroy: Well, 2.8 hours is certainly not the highest rate. In talking to the people that provide these services, they actually would like to provide more than that. But many feel that they can only provide the 2.8, and some have had to resort to lower numbers. So in fact, it is not working.

A great example of excellent care is at Mount St. Mary across the street here, a facility that was renovated in the late '90s, if you can imagine that, and they did a fabulous job of the renovations. That's a facility that actually has higher hours than 2.8, because they believe in the care they do and they go above and beyond to ensure that they have the funding to provide those hours. They are struggling with their funding formula.

They provide extra care. They provide extra support with palliative patients. The residents that need that extra support — they're there for them. They have a fabulous facility, and I wish every facility in the province could provide the type of care they have and the funding they want to have to ensure that they provide it.

In fact, 2.8 isn't the highest level that facilities are endeavouring to get. It is a basic level of direct care, and it's unfortunate that the minister seems to think that that's a high rate, because it doesn't reflect the true cost of providing care.

Some of the comments that were made to me…. Personal care has reduced to the extent that toileting is minimal. Interaction is meagre, to say the least, and preservation of dignity due to the hurried care is affecting patient-caregiver relationships. Palliative care is minimal due to the time constraints of staff, and these are facility operators who are struggling to ensure that they provide high-quality care to residents in complex care facilities.

Is there a formula? Yeah, I think there needs to be something worked on so that there can be a formula, some kind of consistency across health authorities, so it's not going up to the lowest bidder. I don't think complex care and the care of seniors in this province should necessarily go to the lowest bidder. If that's a place where we're going to disagree, then so be it. I think we'll disagree on that one.

One of the problems they're also facing in the facilities is the issue around staffing. Staff are choosing other careers because they're overwhelmed by the intensity of the heavy care that they are experiencing in these facilities. The issues around the acuity again….

The levels of medical issues they have to deal with and the pharmacology concerns are some things that the LPNs or the residential care aides did not feel they would be coming into a facility and doing — that kind of care. Facilities can't afford to have RNs on site. They're on call, or they can't have 24-7 RNs. It's an issue for care providers across the province. There is not enough funding to ensure that, and inevitably it ends up providing less of a standard of care to the residents in those facilities.

One of the issues they face is around funding for their staff. Most facilities were given a negotiated agreement, and then they weren't given enough funds to ensure that they could fund the negotiated agreement. They were not fully funded for issues such as pay equity, shift differential and vacation severance costs, and there's been no recognition of this. They are struggling to make sure that they can meet those needs.

One of the ways that facilities meet those needs is by having to reduce staff, and we know what reducing the staff level does to the services to residents. It leads to a bottomless pit. What the care providers really want to know is why they aren't being fully funded for the negotiated collective agreement. Is there some kind of commitment to provide the funding so that they don't have to cut staffing levels and they can ensure providing the best level of services to residents?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for her question and observations. I guess to begin, the member talked a little bit about Mount St. Mary. I know the facility well and had the opportunity to meet with them and discuss their concerns — as I expect the member has, given the comprehensive nature of her comments and discussion around Mount St. Mary. They do a very good job there — no question about it. Great people doing great work.

The issues in respect of Mount St. Mary are complex ones. I have asked the Vancouver Island Health Authority to work with Mount St. Mary, and Mount St. Mary to work with the Vancouver Island Health Authority to see if they can resolve some of the differences they have with respect to the funding support that is provided by VIHA to Mount St. Mary. I know they continue to be engaged in that, and I hope that they are successful in resolving their issues.

The member says, you know: "Why is there not enough money?" That is a fascinating question, and I suppose it is at this point about a $14 billion–question in this province about why there isn't enough money. That's the budget for the Ministry of Health. If one takes ministry operations and combines it with the investments we're making this year in capital, it's very close to $14 billion. That's a huge change, a huge increase, from the operational budget of $8.3 billion when we took office. We've seen an increase of about 50 percent over six years in the budget of the Ministry of Health.

There have been huge investments made in this ministry and in this service delivery system, and appropriately so, I think. I may have a narrow view on

this as Minister of Health, but the societal demand for health care services grows and grows, and we need to respond to that. Government has responded to that by having year-over-year increases every year, which are well beyond those that any of my colleagues in the executive council have enjoyed in the area of service delivery that they have the good fortune to lead.

You know, given the huge investment we have made in all areas of health care and the particularly huge investment which we have made in respect of residential care and home care and so on, I guess I'd have to ask the member: if $14 billion is not enough money, how much is enough money?

Where would the incremental dollars come from? Which of my colleagues' ministries would she suggest we fold up? What other areas of health care would she suggest that we take money from in order to put more money into this area? Those are all questions we live with each and every day as we take this huge 43 percent to 44 percent of the provincial budget and try to maximize the value we can achieve from that.

On the issue of wages the member raises, in every health authority every dollar of wage increase has been covered off in their year-over-year increase in their budgets. There is not a single case where a wage increase has not been funded in the '07-08 budget, and that will be true for every year out. We will be fully funding all of the wage increases to the health authorities, and that's as it should be.

Does that make their job easy? No. Because again, year over year we just see the demand curve continuing to grow. This is a challenge for the ministry, it's a challenge for government, and it's a challenge for society. I'm not going to go back and give the long dissertation I did on demographic waves. I'm sure it would drive the member crazy if I were to deliver that one again. I'm right on that point?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes? So I won't do that. But I certainly want to repeat that we have some societal challenges here, and we're investing appropriately to meet those.

K. Conroy: That will be our issue to grapple with in 2009. For now I'll have to be satisfied just to ask the minister questions on the budget.

One of the issues I wanted to talk about was around regulations in this sector. I've talked to a number of seniors organizations as well as people who work in this sector regarding the regulation, monitoring and enforcement of standards as articulated in the adult care regulations and the community care and assisted living regulation.

Currently the regulations rely heavily on the honour system for compliance. Will the minister consider progressive financial penalties for licensed residential care providers who fail to comply with the regulations?

Hon. G. Abbott: Hon. Chair, joining me now is Bob de Faye, who is associate deputy minister for the Ministry of Health. I'm happy to say that Bob was my former deputy minister back in the Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services days. He survived those. In fact, he looks far more youthful today than he did back in those days. But I was a difficult minister in those times, unlike now, where I'm quite carefree and…

The member asks an interesting question in respect of what we would do or could do in respect of a facility or a facility care provider that did not meet the regulatory standards that are set out by government in an area.

When we're dealing on the hypothetical level, it is difficult to answer with precision. If it's a conceptual question, conceptually, a failure to live up to standards or to live up to a regulation may, in some instances, result in a financial penalty. Depending on how serious the breech was, the result could be, for example, termination of contract.

Again, we're dealing at the hypothetical level. We would have to bring it down, I think, to a little more real-world example to understand precisely what we would do. There is, in a contractual arrangement, a range of opportunities for what can be done to remediate a situation when either of the parties to the agreement fails to meet the contractual terms of that agreement.

K. Conroy: Seniors' organizations have also raised issues pertaining to the complaints process for licensed residential care. Currently there is no written protocol in place around this. Will the minister consider publishing a complaints protocol for residents and families of residents that clearly sets out how complaints are to be made and to whom they have the right to complain?

Hon. G. Abbott: Hopefully this will be useful to the member. Under the provisions of the Community Care and Assisted Living Act, generally the process in terms of complaints would be this. The aggrieved party could file a complaint with the health authority. The health authority would dispatch a licensing officer to go and review the situation and, if grounds existed, to conduct an investigation pursuant to the complaint. He or she, the licensing officer, would come to a determination with respect to the validity of the complaint.

If the complaint was found to be valid, the licensing officer has the ability and power under the act to issue an order, which might order, for example, a remedy to the situation. As I referenced in my previous answer, hypothetically — and it has happened in reality — in a most extreme instance, withdrawal of the licence could be contemplated.

K. Conroy: In that case, would the minister commit to ordering licensed residential care facilities to then post that complaint protocol in prominent places

within those facilities so that families and residents can access that protocol?

Hon. G. Abbott: We're a little concerned that we understand exactly what the member is looking for. There are a couple of different processes, depending on whether her concern is with respect to assisted-living facilities, which have a little different state, versus residential care facilities. Is it assisted-living, residential care or both that she is seeking some guidance on in the complaint process?

Hon. G. Abbott: Then the answer was correct. This is pursuant to the CCAL Act. The remedies, the complaint processes are contained within the act itself. We can certainly discuss with health authorities if there are ways that we can make people more aware of what is contained in the act and what the process is for dealing with complaints.

I'm not sure exactly where the member is going here. Is she saying that we go into facilities and post the act on a bulletin board? I'm not sure exactly what's being suggested, so I'll ask if there maybe is a clarification around what she has in mind.

K. Conroy: The minister laid out a very clear process for families if residents or families had complaints. They were detailed, and they do this and this and this. What I'm saying is: is there something within the minister's mandate that they would then be expected to post that protocol the minister has just outlined in facilities so that residents or family members can see that posted somewhere — so that they know what process they need to take if they in fact have some complaint that they want to express to the licensing board?

Hon. G. Abbott: We'll take the member's constructive suggestion under advisement.

K. Conroy: In fact, in other jurisdictions within the United States and Canada, not only is it mandatory that facilities post the protocol, but they also have to post the actual results of any complaints that are done by the licensing authority.

In Ontario the government has put a process in place where any complaint that is investigated by the licensing…. Once licensing has done the review, it is actually placed on a website so that family members or residents can go and punch in the name of a facility and up comes all of the complaints that have been put against that facility and how the complaints were remedied.

So I'm asking: will the minister commit to considering ordering the posting of complaints and the resolution of those complaints in a prominent place within those facilities that the complaints have been made against?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, we will take the member's constructive suggestion under advisement. I would note that we always try to learn not only from the constructive suggestions of hon. members of the House but also from the experience of other jurisdictions who also have to grapple with issues similar to ones that we have here.

That having been said, our statutory environment is not always identical, so it's not always possible to immediately transplant what is successful in Ontario or Nunavut or some other jurisdiction into British Columbia.

One of the issues, I'm advised by staff, that we need to grapple with in terms of this is the issue of protecting personal information and personal privacy in releasing information that might be contained within a complaint process or the description of a complaint process. It's not a simple matter. But I certainly don't reject the member's suggestion, and I thank her for making a constructive suggestion.

K. Conroy: I'm wondering if in fact there have been cases where licences have been terminated in B.C.

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, there have been cases where licences have been withdrawn. It is not a commonplace thing, of course, because with the licence withdrawal, the health authorities are obliged to find alternative premises in short order for all of those contained within the facility. But it has occurred. We don't have that information with us, but we can provide it to the member if she wishes. I don't think there's any secrecy around that point. But yes, it has happened.

K. Conroy: Yes. I would like to know the number of facilities that have had their licences terminated and where they're located.

We couldn't access information, so we did have to go through an FOI process to get the number of inspections on adult residential care facilities in the Fraser Valley from '05-06. When I go through and look, there are quite a number of the facilities that have had — ten, 27, eight, 15, 19 — inspections that have had to be done at these facilities, with fairly significant concerns being expressed.

The ratings. I'm sure the minister is aware how the rating system works when an inspection is done. When there's a high hazard rating, the facility is expected to conform to the report immediately. A number of them have had high hazard ratings on an ongoing basis and around issues that are raising real concerns around staffing, physical facilities, cleanliness and nutrition — issues that are of real concern. Over and over again there seems to be staffing, and a lack thereof, identified as a critical issue. I'm concerned that there would be this many facilities that have had this degree of reports made.

It's obvious that I know they're all still running. They're all still operating, but I'm thinking that if there was some kind of financial penalty, facilities might address the licensing regulations a little quicker. They

might be quicker to show respect for the licensing concerns that have been expressed, for the concerns that have been expressed by people, and for the high hazard ratings that these facilities have.

I'm just wondering if the minister has any input as to how they deal with these, and if there is potential for some kind of financial penalty that could force these facilities to clean up their act a little quicker.

Hon. G. Abbott: I think the question the member raises is a good and appropriate one. Generally speaking, those facilities that have a higher rating…. In terms of concerns with respect to whether they are meeting the terms of their contract and the standards that are set out for them — the higher the rating, the more inspections they are apt to see. In short, those operators that are working close to the margin are going to be seeing more inspectors than those who have been consistently shown to be meeting those standards effectively.

I presume the member would agree with me that that is what we would want to see in an inspection system — where the good operators were seeing fewer inspections and those more questionable operators were seeing more inspections. That would seem to me to be indicative of a system that is working well.

On those occasions when the prompt remediation of issues is not seen, there is a range of remedies which can be imposed. Staff tells me that one of the remedies, quite apart from financial penalties, that can be undertaken in serious instances, is to replace the administrator of the facility and to put someone in place that we know is going to do the job. Again, that's not the preferred course. We don't want to be taking over facilities in that respect, but that is a provision that we can undertake.

All of this is aimed at ensuring that people meet the standards and that facility residents can enjoy all of the safety and security that they should expect from their facilities. I think that the system's working well.

Where we see or hear — and the member can advance instances if she has any — of instances where the system is not working well, we want to hear that, too. But generally, I think, what the member has been saying here is that this is a system that seems to be structured to ferret out and to eliminate those things that are not up to standard.

K. Conroy: I think one of the problems — I've raised this in every estimates process, so five times I've raised this — is the fact that the regulations are very low, which is a real concern. The regulations in this sector are not to the degree where I think they should be, nor do other people who I've talked to think they are.

One of the things the ministry needs to look at is to increase the standards of the regulations to make sure that an issue like staffing is part of the regulations so that it doesn't come up in inspection reports. In order to maintain your licence, you need to maintain a level of ratio of staffing. That isn't in any of the regulations now, nor is the standard of care for residents in any of the regulations. It is something that really should be looked at.

I know that the ministry is looking at regulations. They have been working on them for a number of years now. It has not been finalized. I would ask the minister if he would consider increasing those standards of the regulations to ensure that residents get the best possible care that they deserve.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member is correct. The regulation in this area is under review. We always welcome people to state their views with respect to what direction those regulatory changes should take.

There have been some issues around the Freedom of Information Act, particularly in regards to the Interior Health Authority. There's been a freedom-of-information request regarding specific information related to levels of care, financial data, staff ratios and qualifications of staff.

It's been asked of a facility to determine an accurate assessment of the value to the taxpayer about the levels of care being provided to residents in a licensed residential care facility. The facility is a for-profit provider, and the financial data is being refused to the applicants. They're citing section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act because the disclosure will be "harmful to the business interests of the third party."

However, it's been acknowledged that there is a feeling in a number of communities, and especially in the one where this one has been asked, that it's information that should be available to a community to determine the quality of care that has been provided in the facility.

The question is to the minister. Will the minister intervene and allow financial data pertaining to a for-profit licensed care provider be released so that the public may be assured that the taxpayer is getting the best value for its dollar and, more importantly, that the residents who are in that care are receiving the best possible care they can be getting?

Hon. G. Abbott: We always structure our contractual relationships and make our investments in a way that it maximizes the value not only to the taxpayers who fund these facilities but also provides the very best standards of care to the residents who live in them.

In terms of the release of information around contractual relationships, I do have to point out to the member that release of information, whether it's from a health authority or any other public body in the province, has to be consistent with the terms and provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

That act has been in place now for well over a decade, because I was part of the first review of that back in the '90s. I guess that since the early 1990s we've had the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. There are provisions within that act that the Legislature, a committee of the Legislature, reviews on an every-five-year basis.

It is the act that governs public bodies in this province. Release of information has to be consistent with the provisions of that act. Where people have specific

concerns with how a public body severed a particular document, those issues can be raised with the commissioner.

If the member has been confronted by constituents or others who said the release of information was inappropriate, then they should file a complaint or a concern with the commissioner. The commissioner will look at what they have claimed. He can issue an order if in fact the severing of the document has been inconsistent with the terms and provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

There are provisions — and I presume this is what the member is talking about — in FOIPPA which protect what is termed commercially sensitive information. I'm sure that different parties, depending on their perspective, might construe what is commercially sensitive information in different ways.

That again goes back to the point about the commissioner. That is the commissioner's role. If someone is aggrieved at the form and substance of the information that was released because, I suppose, it was either too much or not enough, the remedy is a complaint to the commissioner.

K. Conroy: Then with regards to Deni House in Williams Lake, a public residential care facility that was closed, the minister has been very adamant that taxpayers and residents of Williams Lake and the area are receiving the best value through the closure of that facility and the transfer of those beds to the for-profit provider Williams Lake Seniors Village operated by Retirement Concepts.

I'm assuming that the minister has the financial information necessary to prove that this for-profit facility is providing better value for the taxpayers' dollars and a higher standard of care as compared to Deni House.

Can the minister provide the financial information necessary to prove that it in fact is better value for taxpayers' dollars?

Hon. G. Abbott: I am entirely confident in the Interior Health Authority and the processes that they have undertaken in their contractual arrangements with Williams Lake retirement village. As is the case, I think, with all large projects, I'm sure there was a fairness commissioner who looked at how it was done.

I'm not sure what level of detail the member is looking for here. I am entirely confident that not only are we securing the best bang for the taxpayers' buck, but we're also receiving standards and service in accordance with the contractual arrangements.

I presume that this is related to the first question about the release of financial information around the contractual arrangements. If there is a party that is aggrieved in this matter, is not satisfied with the level of complexity of the material that's been released, then a complaint should be filed with the commissioner. I'm sure the commissioner will follow up and ensure that if it was inappropriate, it be remedied.

K. Conroy: Can the minister provide the information that proves — I'm quoting the minister — that it's providing the best bang for the bucks? Can we see the financial information to prove that?

Hon. G. Abbott: If the member is seeking information over and above what I've said in this House, she should enumerate the information that she seeks. We will attempt to provide it to her.

One of the other freedom-of-information documents we've received is the evaluation scores for request for proposals for complex residential care services in the Interior Health Authority.

There are six communities listed here, and there are also the scores that the various organizations and companies got for their proposals. It's interesting that the only proposal for Williams Lake got a lower score than any of the other companies that were awarded long-term care facilities in the rest of the Interior Health Authority.

My question is: does the minister monitor the process around the RFP, and where is the accountability here?

Hon. G. Abbott: These are public contracting processes that are open to every member of the public to peruse, for every potential proponent to peruse. Everyone can see the documents. Everyone is free to submit proposals in respect of the projects that are laid out in the request-for-qualification and the request-for-proposal processes.

There's nothing new in terms of…. Sometimes when you go to contract, the unsuccessful proponents will be unhappy that they were unsuccessful. That is common. One of the things that's been developed over time so that any doubts are alleviated in respect of the fairness of the process is…. There are standards in place around how this needs to be done. There are time lines in place around when things need to happen. There's openness in terms of all the steps, in terms of opening the tenders and so on.

I don't know if this is the case in every instance. I suspect that it probably is, but fairness commissioners are used as independent third parties who look at it to try to ensure that there are no public doubts about the fairness of the process. If there's something about the process that the member objects to or thinks could be improved upon, I'm glad to hear it. I'm glad to think about it in terms of improving the process. But all of these contracts have to stand up to legal scrutiny, ultimately.

One must be absolutely certain that the processes put in place can meet the legal test. It is entirely possible, if they don't, that an unsuccessful proponent will challenge the matter in court, and off we'll go on a new and even more complex process.

K. Conroy: For the record, to get the actual numbers the opposition had to go through a freedom-of-information process. The request for proposals themselves might be on a website and might be accessible, but the actual numbers that the proposals were evaluated on were only obtained through a freedom-of-information request.

Just to point out that communities in the Interior Health Authority that were awarded proposals…. There are numbers. In Cranbrook the successful proponent had a score of 196. In Kamloops it was 190; in Kelowna, 187; Vernon, 191. But in Williams Lake the award was for 167.

I'm just asking around the accountability of why a proposal that low would be awarded. It just begs the question of what all the other corporations and organizations in the other communities are offering to those communities and those residents that's not being offered in Williams Lake.

Hon. G. Abbott: These are competitive contractual processes. They're competitive procurement processes that are undertaken. What the Interior Health Authority would be attempting to do is to match up demand with capacity in communities across Interior Health.

If they feel that, let's say hypothetically, there is a need for an additional 30 residential care units in Williams Lake, they will go to a process to try to attract proponents to bid on that. The more that bid, typically, often the more comfortable we can be that it was an excellent competitive process, but it is a process where sometimes the market interest is less than we might optimally like.

Nevertheless, Interior Health is not going to build all of the facilities in Kelowna just because there were a lot of competitive proponents there. They are building facilities to try to match up with the care and capacity needs across the expanse of Interior Health.

So to take a score of — I can't remember what the member said — 167 in Williams Lake and say: "Was that a bad score in relation to the 190 that was secured in Cranbrook…?" That's a difficult thing to judge because we don't know how many proponents showed up in Cranbrook versus how many showed up in Williams Lake.

We don't know all of the details of it, but it is an open process. I think that the member shouldn't form conclusions based on the scores alone. One would have to know how many competed and what the nature of their proposals were before one could really form conclusions about what the respective merits of the proposals were.

K. Conroy: We do have the numbers of the people that competed, and 167 in all of the other communities was not even close to, I think, halfway, for those. But I'm going to move on.

With respect to supportive housing and assisted living, I've had concerns raised recently regarding the ability of registered assisted-living facilities to deregister without giving notice to the existing residents. What this does is allow a facility operator to ignore various regulations with respect to quality of food, residents' safety and so on. There don't seem to be any standards or regulations pertaining to supportive housing, for instance, other than the building codes.

Will the minister commit to reviewing those regulations to ensure that residents are provided adequate support and appropriate notice when a facility operator decides to deregister?

Hon. G. Abbott: I hope that we have understood the member's question correctly. I'm sure that she will quickly launch a supplemental, should that be required.

First of all, let's make a clear distinction between supportive housing, which would often be the kind of housing that is provided by B.C. Housing, where people are living completely independently…. There's not a care component in supportive housing. They are not registered nor licensed to undertake that. Supportive housing is just that — supportive housing.

The next level in terms of level of care, as we've talked earlier, is assisted living. There is a care component there, as well as provision of meals and recreational and social amenities and so on, but the fact that there's some care provided within the assisted-living facility obliges them to be registered with the registrar of assisted living.

When you move up to the even higher care component of residential care, then of course you're into licensing. But as we understand the member's question, it is around an assisted-living facility that wishes to deregister to become something other than an assisted-living facility. That certainly is possible in the marketplace. There are numerous private assisted-living facilities around this city and many cities in British Columbia.

They are people conducting a business. They are registered with the registrar for assisted living to conduct that business. It allows them the opportunity to provide a level of care to the clients that they serve. Should, hypothetically, an assisted-living premises want to deregister and get out of that business, they can do that, but they would have to do that by first creating a plan on how the clients that are being served in their facility are going to be served elsewhere.

You cannot just say: "I don't want to be registered anymore. I want to have assisted living, but I don't want to be registered." You can't do that. There is an obligation to be registered if one is going to be providing a level of care consistent with assisted living. So if they're getting out of the business, they can. We're not forcing people to stay in the assisted-living business, but if they're going to be in it, they have to be registered. There is a process for deregistering and getting out of the business, but it does oblige them to get out of the business.

K. Conroy: In the regulations, then, is there some type of adequate and appropriate notice that the owner would have to provide the residents if that was going to happen? Would they have to give 30 days' notice, six months' notice? How much notice does the owner of the facility have to give to the residents if that was going to happen?

The plan which a registered assisted-living facility owner-operator would have to provide to the registrar in order to deregister would have to be acceptable to the registrar. It would have to contain provisions around the transfer and support of residents within the assisted-living facility to other facilities before that facility would be able to close or move on to another level of care or whatever, hypothetically, the owner-operator was intending to do.

But the safeguard is that there has to be a plan. That plan would have to be agreed to by the registrar, and that plan, presumably, would contain all the transitional plans for the resident population of the assisted-living facility.

K. Conroy: I'm assuming by that, then, although the plan has to be in place, there's no time frame in the regulations. Is that something that the minister might consider when they're looking at regulations — to ensure that there's some sort of adequate time frame? I'm sure the minister would agree that it could put residents at risk and cause quite a bit of concern if suddenly the facility where they're living is being shut down. Is there an appetite for a time frame somewhere in the regulations?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll accept the member's suggestion as a constructive suggestion. The only response that we would make to the suggestion is that if you have a specific time frame, then the default tends to be to that specific time frame. If it's 30 days, that might be a less generous or less workable option than having a plan that has to be approved by the registrar before the transition can occur.

There are probably some advantages and disadvantages to either approach to this, but I accept the member's suggestion that there should be certainty around this, and I agree with that. Whether that certainty is best achieved through a plan that must be accepted or whether it's better through a specific time frame which must be observed…. I guess we can look at it and think about it.

K. Conroy: While the minister is in such an agreeable mood, then, would the minister commit to developing basic standards and regulations for those resident seniors that are living in supportive housing in B.C. and have no protection?

Hon. G. Abbott: Regulations are being developed to see the application of the Residential Tenancy Act to supportive housing.

K. Conroy: I'm looking forward to those regulations and hoping that all of the appropriate stakeholders have been contacted. It was our understanding that last year they weren't, so I'm hoping that…. It's appropriate that the minister responsible for that is also in the House at this time, so that's great.

I just want to move on to an issue that I've raised also in past estimates, and I was really hoping I didn't have to raise it again this year. That is the drug formulary issue with Alzheimer's drugs.

It's my understanding that B.C. is the only province in the entire country that does not accept Aricept, Exelon, Reminyl — these drugs that people that have Alzheimer's or early onset dementia find incredibly beneficial. I've got fact sheets from doctors, from people who are involved in the Alzheimer Society and from individuals themselves who want to be able to access these drugs and can't afford to, quite sadly.

I understand the minister's commitment of research to Alzheimer's and the issues associated with it, but the fact is that when a person has early onset dementia or Alzheimer's now, the research that is taking place isn't going to help them. But these drugs can help them and can give them another couple of years, and it's something that I think needs to be recognized.

I don't understand why we are the only province in the country that doesn't seem to think that this is necessary. I've talked to and had letters from people across the province who would dearly love to be able to access these drugs. I'm hoping that, in the agreeable mood that the minister is in, this is the estimate year that he is going to announce that, in fact, these drugs will be included under B.C. Pharmacare.

Hon. G. Abbott: I know that the member will have a few questions, and so I'll try not to be overly comprehensive in my answer here. But this is an important question, and I'm glad that the member asked it.

I met about a month, or maybe two months ago now, with representatives from the Alzheimer Society of B.C. to follow up on some work that we are doing with the society in terms of testing what might best be described as the real-world effectiveness of Aricept and perhaps other Alzheimer's drugs as well.

The challenge for our Pharmacare program in British Columbia has been that the national and international work that has been done in respect of the efficacy of Aricept and Reminyl and other Alzheimer's drugs suggests that the effectiveness of those drugs is in real question. I know that some jurisdictions have moved to provide coverage for those drugs in the absence of evidence that it does provide real-world effectiveness, but British Columbia has not.

We have some anecdotal evidence that for some Alzheimer's patients there is value for a period of time in the use of some of those drugs. Again, that's anecdotal. Some clinicians suggest that they have seen a benefit, So that's interesting, and we don't dismiss that anecdotal evidence. It is not consistent — I hasten to add, though — with the work that has been done on comprehensive international studies.

Well, let me just note that, in terms of reviews by other organizations and the corroboration of those with Pharmacare's findings around this, the Drug Effectiveness Review Project in the U.S. came to a conclusion about the drugs in a project they did before 2006 and published in July 2006. The British Medical Journal published a review of all published double-blind, randomized control trials in August 2005, which made similar conclusions about the gaps in the evi-

dence. In September 2005 the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health published a report that also made similar conclusions.

We recognize that there are gaps in the existing evidence on the safety and effectiveness of these drugs. We have been working with the Alzheimer's Society to try to find a way in which we might reach some better understanding of under what circumstances and with which patients these drugs might have value.

I believe that we're moving closer to the launch of what might be termed, I guess, a trial around this. There may be a better word for it, but we're trying to look at the real-world effectiveness of this by looking at how these drugs perform in real-world examples here in British Columbia.

I know the Alzheimer Society was very pleased when I met with them that we were making progress in regard to Aricept, Reminyl and Exelon; so that's good. I'm glad that we're looking at those things, and I do hope that the trial work will get underway relatively soon. It will inform future policy with respect to whether it's appropriate to provide broader coverage for these pharmaceuticals.

K. Conroy: I just find it interesting that every other province in the country has determined it is effective, that patients with early-onset dementia and Alzheimer's in those provinces are accessing these drugs, and that family members do notice a difference. I think that the ministry probably could go to any one of those provinces, speak to the different Alzheimer societies from those provinces and have examples of patients and family members where it has been very beneficial.

I think the cost of Alzheimer's in hospitalization and long-term care is substantial. The costs that are saved over the cost of the drug — if it saves a few years of someone being in the hospital — I think far outweighs the trepidation that the minister seems to be expressing about ensuring that people in this province have access to this drug.

On that note, I will take it under advisement that there is potential for a study — a pilot project, I'm assuming, is what the minister is suggesting — of people who are going to be tested. I think there's probably going to be an inundation of people who would dearly like to try the drugs because they know they've been proven successful in other jurisdictions. Hopefully, this will happen sooner rather than later. I thank the minister for the input, and at this point I'm going to turn the Pharmacare questions over to my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway.

A. Dix: Surely, hon. Chair, we don't want to do anything to disturb the minister's agreeable mood, but I have a couple of questions for the minister about the Pharmacare program. I just want to start with a letter I received, and I think that the minister has received similar letters to this.

It comes from a member of the community, in this case, from the community of the member for Surrey-Newton. What the letter says…. It's Mr. Harbans Singh. He's a very eloquent person, he writes to ministers from time to time, and he's a senior. He notes that he has a concern about Fair Pharmacare, as he is a senior born after 1939 and there are people in the community he lives in who were born before 1939 who are treated differently — in fact, they're eligible for different levels of care.

I want to ask the minister if he thinks that that unequal level of care for seniors born before and after 1939 is consistent with a program that wants to describe itself as "fair."

Hon. G. Abbott: I just want to close the loop in respect of the Alzheimer's issue that was raised by the member. She suggested that there was evidence in other provinces that had prompted them to extend their coverage to Aricept and, in some cases, to other Alzheimer's drugs. There is no such evidence. There is no such evidence assembled in those provinces to form that conclusion.

What we do in an evidence-based approach is look at the efficacy of the pharmaceuticals themselves. We don't respond to the efficacy of the lobbying behind the coverage of those pharmaceuticals. We are looking forward to learning more about the real-world application and the real-world efficacy of the Alzheimer's drugs.

That's why we will be doing a study over three years involving more than 25,000 people with Alzheimer's disease in British Columbia. I'm sure we will learn an enormous amount about the disease and the pharmaceuticals and when they're effective through that work.

For the record, there is not some body of evidence that we have been ignoring. That is simply not the case. The body of evidence questions the efficacy overall of the application of these pharmaceuticals. We have to ensure that before we put a drug on the formulary and provide full coverage to it, that in fact there's a societal benefit and a medical benefit for doing so, and we're not yet convinced of that.

In terms of whether I think Fair Pharmacare is fair, yes, I certainly do. There is no particular magic in the date 1939 other than the fact that it was the date when seniors became seniors, when the transition was made from Pharmacare to Fair Pharmacare.

A. Dix: Well, does the minister think it's fair that seniors born after 1939 get a lower level, really, of protection and support from the government than those born before 1939?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, it is fair in that those born after 1939 will be receiving the same level of support and coverage as the general population. Those born before 1939, the older population that were here and receiving those benefits under Fair Pharmacare, will continue to receive those benefits. I think it's entirely fair. It's a transition point and entirely fair as that.

A. Dix: So let's ask about Fair Pharmacare. The minister will know that there's been some academic

work done on Fair Pharmacare by Steve Morgan, amongst others, at UBC. Some of that work has been sponsored by the ministry and some of the information provided by the ministry. The summary in health care policy is a good summary. That has been done. What it says is that, in fact, Fair Pharmacare achieved its objective of reducing public expenditures on pharmaceuticals — an unsurprising accomplishment. Reduction in Pharmacare expenditures is technically straightforward: simply model co-payments and deductibles to achieve the budgetary target.

So they said that the government succeeded in cutting the benefits of seniors and others and reducing, in fact, the government's share of Pharmacare coverage from 52 percent in 2001 to 43 percent in 2004 — and presumably, less today.

It's interesting. Even though the study is not unsympathetic to the government, it must be said, the study says very clearly that average private payments for prescription drugs as a proportion of household income increased for low-income families and at all other income levels. The financial burden of prescription drugs was heightened rather than alleviated for low-income families.

So when the minister talks about Fair Pharmacare…. We heard this. He said that most British Columbians got their coverage cut, most seniors got their coverage cut and most people in B.C. got their coverage cut. And the government says: "Well, no. We're offering more protection for low-income people." But this first comprehensive study done — again, in as sympathetic a way to the government as possible — says quite the contrary.

I'm sure that the minister has familiarized himself with the evidence, but I will assist him a little more. The evidence is clear — he even says that it's surprising evidence — but it says that the increase in private expenditures among both senior and non-senior households of lower income is surprising, given that the policy seems specifically designed to protect low-income seniors. However, the fact of the matter is that the evidence is clear. It's a comprehensive study, and what it shows is that low-income people did worse as well.

I'm curious. To the minister: because the article here, entitled "British Columbia's Pharmacare Program: Fair or Foul?" which was first published in Healthcare Policy…. It seems to be quite foul.

Hon. G. Abbott: You know, I'm actually a little surprised to hear from the opposition Health critic that he opposes Fair Pharmacare. That is something that I find quite surprising. I would have thought as someone from, well, let's say the left side of the political spectrum, he would have been supportive of a Pharmacare program that provided benefits to low-income British Columbians, to older British Columbians and particularly, I would have thought, to older low-income British Columbians.

I am surprised, perhaps shocked, to hear that the opposition Health critic is an opponent of Fair Pharmacare. That is to me an astonishing thing to hear, but let's talk a little bit more about the Morgan study, which the member references.

This is from the study, "Income-Based Drug Coverage in British Columbia: The Impact on Private and Public Expenditures," Healthcare Policy, 2006. Just a couple of brief quotes here on this. This is an independent, external evaluation with experts at the University of British Columbia and Harvard University in the United States. I suspect we wouldn't question the credentials of anyone involved in this.

Among the key findings, and this is a very important one, so I want to note it for the member, was: "This finding" — the rate of drug-expenditure growth slowing — "was consistent across all age and income groups, suggesting that it was a sector-wide phenomenon and not the result of the implementation of the seniors co-payment in 2002 or the income-based Pharmacare in 2003."

As well, I'd ask the member to consider this. This is again from Steve Morgan, but a different co-author and from a different document. It's the "Income-Based Drug Coverage in British Columbia: Towards an Understanding of the Policy," Healthcare Policy.

The NDP was thinking about this as early as 1993, apparently, and now, given the comments of the opposition Health critic, apparently they did so advisedly. Apparently, they concluded that it was not appropriate to protect low-income British Columbians, older British Columbians and low-income older British Columbians from these things.

Perhaps the opposition Health critic wants to clarify whether he supports or opposes a Fair Pharmacare. I certainly would welcome that, I'm sure his caucus would welcome that, and I'm sure all British Columbians would welcome that.

A. Dix: Let me just conclude from the other thing about the program. British Columbia's Fair Pharmacare program is "unworthy of emulation by other jurisdictions," and here's why. What the Minister of Health is saying is that he decided to slash low-income people less than other people, that he targeted his attack on the middle class, in this case, more than on low-income people.

The first comprehensive study says low-income people are worse-off after Fair Pharmacare — that all British Columbians are worse-off under Fair Pharmacare. And what's a rich British Columbian to the Minister of Health? It's interesting to note, because we're talking about salaries so much around here these days, that someone over $30,000 is a rich person. In my

riding of Vancouver-Kingsway $30,000 isn't a lot of money. I don't know if it is in the riding of the hon. Minister of Health.

What it says here is that the current structure of Fair Pharmacare results in an implicit 3-percent annual tax increase for them — less coverage for everybody, less coverage for everyone under prescription drugs, working people worse off and low-income people worse off, according to this study. The reason they're worse off is that the purpose of Fair Pharmacare was to cut spending, to cut government coverage of prescription drugs. And do you know what? They succeeded. Fifty-two percent of prescription drugs covered under an NDP government in 2001; it was 43 percent by 2004. Maybe I'd like to ask the minister: what percentage are you at today?

This is Mr. Morgan's study, the one you were just covering from. The share of total prescription drug expenditure covered from the provincial government budget fell from 52 percent in 2001 to 43 percent in 2004, according to the Morgan study. I'd like to ask the minister: does he have an estimate as to what that percentage is in 2007?

The Chair: Members, can I remind members not to use first names. And if they could please direct all comment through the Chair, it would be appreciated.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I didn't hear the opposition Health critic explain why he opposes Fair Pharmacare. I heard some confirmation that he opposes Fair Pharmacare, and again I am astonished by that, because the facts are that some 300,000 low-income British Columbians are better off because of Fair Pharmacare.

Now he's apparently back to the old class-war days here, saying that this is an attack on the middle class. Well, this is fascinating that the opposition Health critic is changing ground here. They've abandoned low-income British Columbians. He's saying, and I guess I am going to presume that when the opposition Health critic….

If he ever had the opportunity to be Health Minister, we would return to the Pharmacare of the 1990s. He would abandon those 300,000 low-income families. So I'd look forward to hearing from him in his next answer how an NDP government would change Fair Pharmacare, how they would do away with Fair Pharmacare, how they would abandon those 300,000 low-income British Columbians who are better off because of Fair Pharmacare. I really look forward to hearing that.

In fact, to go back to the Morgan study, the Morgan study found very clearly that Fair Pharmacare achieved the objective of more progressively reallocating public expenditures. It also found that it improved the fairness of the program in terms of access by level of income. All of that, I think, points to it being the right thing to do.

If the member thinks it's the wrong thing to do, again, he should certainly say so and advance the arguments why he thinks it's a bad thing. But I think this has just become a terribly useful discussion here, as we're discovering something about the NDP's future pharmaceutical policies. They apparently are going to eliminate Fair Pharmacare and abandon all those low-income British Columbians, so I look forward to hearing more from the opposition Health critic about this.

You know, I always think that in estimates the preoccupation is going to be on what the government has done, but this is really, really useful — learning that the NDP is prepared to abandon Fair Pharmacare.

A. Dix: Everybody in the House will recall the basic factual question that the minister failed to answer. These are the basic facts, not from me but from the Morgan study. It says the share of total prescription drug expenditure covered from the provincial government budget fell from 52 percent to 43 percent by 2004. So I asked the Minister of Health a very straightforward question. What is it now? It was 51-percent covered in 2001 when this government took office. After they slashed coverage, it went to 43 percent in 2004. So what is it now — 38 percent, 36 percent, 34 percent? How much have they slashed the government's share of prescription drug coverage?

The minister is, of course, his usual partisan and flippant self, but the fact of the matter is that prescription drugs…. I know this, and people with chronic disease know this: people take prescription drugs because they need the drugs, and they need the coverage. Pharmacare and the success of Pharmacare over the years in British Columbia have kept prescription drug prices lower in British Columbia. We have led the country in terms of overall prescription drug coverage. We did when this government took office. So it's a very simple question — 52 percent in 2001; 43 percent in 2004; here we are in 2007, in this fiscal year: what does the minister say it is now?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm glad to provide the member with the numbers which I'm sure will convince him of the error of his ways in opposing Fair Pharmacare and wanting to abandon those 300,000 low-income British Columbians who I always thought he would stand up for. This is a sad day when the New Democratic Party abandons their low-income British Columbians and abandons 300,000 of them that benefit each and every day of the year from Fair Pharmacare.

Let's look at the facts. Let's look at the numbers. The Pharmacare budget for 2007-2008…. This is not the full, but this is the pharmaceutical services division, the expenditures, so we're talking about Fair Pharmacare here for '07-08.

The members should listen. I know there's a lack of attention here at the moment. They might want to write this down. For fiscal '07-08 the budget is $587.448 million. Okay, you got that? Okay, so now let's go back to 2001-2002 — $456.461 million; for 2002-2003, $468,709.

We have seen over the years steady increases in respect of the Pharmacare budget. Fair Pharmacare is working effectively. It is working as it was intended. It is providing a very substantial benefit to 300,000 low-income British Columbians. I haven't yet heard a good argument why we should abandon Fair Pharmacare. It's a sad day to hear that the NDP is going to abandon all those 300,000 people.

A. Dix: I'll ask the question again. It's one of those factual questions, and the minister doesn't want to answer it because, of course, it shows what he is saying is wrong. It shows that this was about cutting benefits to people and not about providing benefits to people. It shows that the share of prescription drug costs paid by the province on behalf of people who need prescription drugs, people who have chronic diseases, has declined under this government as a result of government policy.

He doesn't want to acknowledge that. But the facts are clear. They're not my facts. They're from the Morgan study — 52 to 43 percent in 2004.

Let me ask the question again. If the minister doesn't answer this time, I'm happy to move on. I'm happy to avoid this embarrassment for him about the effects of his policies. I'm happy to move on. But I'll give him one more chance to actually answer a straightforward, factual question, which is: what share of total prescription drug expenditures is covered by the provincial government today? That's a simple question. Presumably, the minister has the answer, and he might like to offer that to the people of British Columbia.

Hon. G. Abbott: Only the members opposite, only the New Democratic Party with their strange and perverse way of looking at these things, could somehow construe a 24.4-percent increase in the total expenditure on Pharmacare and associate that with a cut. It's a 24.4-percent increase. It's a budget today of $587.448 million — almost a 25-percent increase. How could one possibly construe that as a cut?

The member can take any obscure element out of the air and claim that it is somehow indicative of whether Fair Pharmacare is effective. If we covered every pharmaceutical in the world, would that suddenly be the best measure of whether Fair Pharmacare was effective? No, it wouldn't be.

The fact of the matter is…. The member is not going to get off that easy. I want to know why he and his colleagues oppose a Fair Pharmacare program that provides a substantial benefit to 300,000 low-income British Columbians. He hasn't answered that question yet. He keeps telling us there's a problem. But tell us why he opposes 300,000 low-income British Columbians getting a benefit from Fair Pharmacare.

A. Dix: Well, I look forward to the minister's future time as critic in this area. I look forward to it. I can't wait. It's going to be a depressing day for him, I know. But that day is coming soon. It's coming soon enough.

The minister thinks it's obscure how much people actually pay for prescription drugs. He thinks that issue is obscure. It's an obscure issue. It's not an obscure issue to people who are paying that price, who are paying more and more and more for prescription drugs. It's not obscure to them.

The fact of the matter is that the level of government coverage has been cut. The main purpose of Fair Pharmacare was to cut and control government spending. That was its main purpose. What this report says is that, to the credit of the government, they succeeded in cutting coverage to people. They succeeded. More than that, it says everybody is worse off. There's not a quintile in the province that is better off. That's what the report says — not a quintile that's better off.

It's disappointing that the minister, when we ask him for basic information that guides public policy, which is something that is basic information everywhere…. I think the answer right now is probably close to 37 percent. In fact, that's what the answer actually is — the answer the minister refuses to give. He refused to tell us what share of prescription drug expenditure in British Columbia is paid for by the provincial government in the discussion of the Health budget. He refuses to do it.

You know why he refuses to do it? The members are interested in why. Because what we're seeing is less and less coverage for people in British Columbia — less and less coverage for people with chronic disease in British Columbia. That's what we're seeing. That's the effect of what they did. They made cuts.

They can play whatever games they want. They can make whatever partisan charge they want. The fact of the matter is that they cut expenditures, they cut coverage, and the consequences for people are real.

So I'll move on to another topic, because we want to have a discussion here. The minister seemed agreeable a little while ago, and we want to get back to that place for him. We want to get back to a place where the minister might be agreeable. So I'll ask the minister….

A. Dix: The minister seems perplexed. The realities of his politics and of his policies are placed in front of him, and he doesn't like it.

So I'm going to ask him another question. I'm going to ask him a question that I started to ask him yesterday in this area of coverage. It's about immunization, and I'm looking forward to his answer.

He knows that the federal government, on Gardasil, has made a substantial public investment of hundreds of millions of dollars. It's quite an extraordinary investment for an immunization program. I know that the Minister of Education would be interested in this as well. It's to deal with the HPV virus and, hopefully — if it succeeds — to eradicate cervical cancer. We're talking immunization in public schools, probably in grades 6 and 9, I believe, if the program is put into effect.

Can the minister report on progress the government has made on this, given the federal government's

program? Can he tell us what contacts the federal government has had with them and whether, in fact, the target that the federal government seems to have of having the program in place this September will be reached here in British Columbia?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm glad to provide information in respect of Gardasil as well. But the member stated incorrectly that there was less and less coverage. That is just plainly, factually wrong. It is completely unfair, inappropriate and completely incorrect. I can tell him that definitively.

I've had the honour now for a couple of years of chairing the national pharmaceuticals strategy, work that is being undertaken by all of the provinces in concert with the federal government. I can tell him definitively that British Columbia has the most comprehensive universal coverage of pharmaceuticals in the nation. We should be very, very proud of that.

Not only do we have Fair Pharmacare, which provides those substantial benefits to the 300,000 low-income British Columbians that apparently the opposition Health critic and his colleagues are deserting, but also there is plan B, which provides coverage to permanent residents in licensed long-term care facilities.

If the member was going to be fair, he would put plan B into the equation. Each residential facility is served by a contracted pharmacy, and the pharmacies servicing the facility will submit their claims under plan B. It's a great program for those in long-term care facilities.

Plan C is for recipients of B.C. income assistance. If you receive income assistance through the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance, plan C covers the full cost of your eligible prescription drugs and designated medical supplies.

Plan D is for cystic fibrosis patients. Individuals with cystic fibrosis who are registered with one of the four CF clinics in B.C. receive digestive enzymes free of charge under plan D. The enzymes are dispensed through your community pharmacy.

There is also plan F for children enrolled in the at-home program. Apparently the members don't like plan F either. The at-home program for the Ministry of Children and Family Development provides community-based, family-style care for severely handicapped children who would otherwise become reliant on institutional care. Children receiving full medical benefits through the At Home program qualify for full coverage of eligible prescription drugs and designated medical supplies. That's plan F.

Plan G, a no-charge psychiatric medication program, is available to individuals of any age who are registered with a mental health service centre and who demonstrate clinical and financial need. Plan G provides full coverage of certain psychiatric medications and so on.

Plan P is the palliative care drug plan for those B.C. residents of any age who have reached end of life and who wish to receive palliative care at home. Plan P is a great support to them.

That's just part of our Fair Pharmacare program. I think it's a great program. I hope I'm getting closer to persuading the opposition Health critic that he and his colleagues ought to support the program. I think it's a great program. It is entirely consistent with principles of social justice and fairness, and I hope that at some point you can be persuaded to come on the bandwagon of Fair Pharmacare. I think it's the right thing to do, and it's the effective thing to do. I hope that you can be persuaded of that.

In terms of Gardasil, the provincial health officer, Dr. Perry Kendall, is leading a team which is looking at the potential of adding a Gardasil or other immunization project to address the issue of cervical cancer. Perry and his team are assessing how a program of that nature would be most effectively implemented. Things are, I think, looking pretty positive in terms of a move in the direction of that.

How exactly, logistically, that might be undertaken is still a matter that is being considered, but the federal government has offered up $300 million in respect of HPV vaccination. That is a good thing. Regrettably, it has been offset by a termination of the national immunization strategy dollars of the same amount, $300 million, so that's not a wonderful thing from our perspective. However, there are certainly some merits to HPV vaccination, whether with Gardasil or potentially other HPV vaccines that may be on the market in the next year or two.

That is all being assessed by Dr. Perry Kendall and his very capable team. We'll be looking forward to results of that, and we'll be looking forward to implementing his recommendations promptly and effectively.

A. Dix: I share the minister's concern with respect to the national immunization strategy. But with respect to Gardasil, is the intent to actually have a program up and running in the coming school year — a vaccination program for HPV in the upcoming school year?

Hon. G. Abbott: Such a program would be delivered by our public health nurses. We're in discussion with the public health nurses. Conclusions have not been reached at this point.

A. Dix: The minister referred to the national immunization strategy and potential cuts to the national immunization strategy. What impact will those cuts have, presuming we're talking about a shifting in funding from one set of immunization to another, on existing programs? What steps is the province taking to convince the federal government to reverse its position and to continue to fund that strategy and do what I think we'd all like to see, which is to view Gardasil as an improvement to that strategy and not as a replacement for it?

Hon. G. Abbott: We are going to be continuing all of the programs that we have undertaken in respect to vaccinations and immunizations. Those will continue,

and we'll continue to fulfil all of our commitments. It does represent an additional financial pressure on the program, but that's the issue.

In terms of our view of that, I've made it very clear to the federal Health Minister that we are extremely concerned and disappointed by this change. I believe that my colleague Health Ministers across the nation have let them know the same thing.

A. Dix: Just on the question of immunization, one of the real tests, I think, for any public health system is the level of immunization at age two. No doubt it's one of the performance targets for the government. I think one of the things we struggle with in terms of health promotion is how you get there, how you improve those rates.

That's an important question, and I think we want to take every opportunity we can to encourage an increase in those rates. Our goal would be to get as close to 100 percent as we can get, and I want to ask the minister how we're doing right now.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm sure that very straightforward questions can lead us at times into quite complex answers. I didn't sense that the member was looking for a complex answer here.

Certainly, we're trying to get as high a rate of immunization in the early years as is possible. We are making progress year over year with respect to that. We've recently unveiled an immunization framework which aims at moving that rate up, hopefully at 5 percent or more every year into the future, based around promotional and educational initiatives by public health officials across the province.

The answer to the member's question, though, is that currently for those aged two, the immunization rate is about 70 percent. Then through the years after that, by the time they are entering school, it's about 80 percent.

A. Dix: I think it's one goal. If I may make a suggestion, because I don't make these decisions here in the House, it's one of those issues in terms of dealing with children's health, and improving immunization rates might be one of those issues that the select standing committee at some point might be able to assist with, so I make that suggestion to the minister.

I asked the minister on Monday, I think, about thalidomide, and he was going to respond with his answer. I'll give him the opportunity to do that now.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his important question about thalidomide. The cost of thalidomide has risen about 1,000 percent in the last five years. Even by pharmacological standards, that's quite staggering. The B.C. Cancer Agency has a responsibility to ensure that health care funds are used appropriately to support the best possible patient care.

Thalidomide has never been approved for use in Canada by Health Canada. It's only available to patients through Health Canada's special access program. There is a program called CANTAP, the acronym for Canadian Thalomid Access Program, through which patients with sufficient financial need, according to the manufacturer, who are not grandfathered by British Columbia can still have the drug funded.

The federal Minister of Health doesn't have any tools to be able to control or limit price increases for non-patented drugs. For single-source non-patent drugs this is a particular problem. It's something we've raised with the federal government in the past and will continue to do so.

The B.C. Cancer Agency delisted coverage for thalidomide for new myeloma patients last year. Individuals who were receiving this drug were grandfathered, and coverage continued.

The B.C. Cancer Agency took this step after a full evaluation of scientific evidence concerning the effectiveness of thalidomide as well as a newer drug, bortezomib. Other therapies for myeloma such as bortezomib are available and funded through the B.C. Cancer Agency and offer equivalent outcomes.

A. Dix: My colleague from Maple Ridge is going to finish with a few questions today for the minister. But just to finish on thalidomide and to say that…. I think that the company's name is Celgene. It's a New Jersey company. Their behaviour towards people in British Columbia….

There's a family here in the Victoria area. Their daughter uses thalidomide. They were originally told they'd have access to the very subsidy program the minister talked about. Then the company changed its mind.

This is the company that has, as the minister said, increased the price of a drug by 1,000 percent even though no research was done on it. It's the same drug that has been in existence for decades. Really, what this company has done is held cancer patients ransom in British Columbia.

This is not a criticism of the B.C. Cancer Agency and their decision to delist. The B.C. Cancer Agency had no choice. This was a company acting in a totally disgraceful manner because it's pure profit for them. It's pure profit, the increase in price.

They're using their monopoly position because of thalidomide's past. It's not authorized for general import into Canada. This one company had access, and they ripped off cancer patients. I think that in their case — the company's name is Celgene — they and their shareholders need to be held accountable.

I hope and believe that the Governor of New Jersey and the Attorney General of New Jersey are going to take action against this company in the United States, because they deserve such action. This is a drug being used, really, by very few patients in B.C., both young and old. It helped them. Given the drug's terrible history, it did.

I think that since the drug is actually being manufactured in parts of the world at less than ten cents a pill, the government of Canada needs to take steps. I'm glad that the minister is sympathetic to change in the approach to this kind of drug.

I wanted to ask the minister a few questions about the emergency department expansion at Ridge Meadows Hospital. The expansion was much needed, but it was announced in 2004 as an $8 million project. By March of 2006 it had ballooned to $14 million, I believe it was. Then just three months later it skyrocketed to $20.9 million — so an over-two-and-a-half-times increase in the budget to that facility.

I was wondering if the minister could comment. Has he had discussions with Fraser Health about that project? What are the results of those discussions? Can he assure us — assure the people of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows and all taxpayers — that the final cost won't skyrocket further?

Hon. G. Abbott: We don't have information immediately available on that project. We'll endeavour to get it. We can provide that to the member tomorrow, but we'll have to give him an update then.

M. Sather: I appreciate that promise by the minister, and then it would probably behoove us to wait until tomorrow to continue on this conversation.

We have further input by my good colleague. I'm sure that the minister looks forward to that.

A. Dix: See, there we have a nice ten-minute slot set aside for you, Minister.

I know I've said this to the minister before, and this is one subject on which we agree…. The desire to fully utilize every minute of this parliamentary session…

I wanted to ask the minister because…. One of the issues that has been dealt with in other jurisdictions — and I think that the minister will be able to handle this on his own, but he may not — is the issue of private clinics, the issue of doctor-run hospitals and the issue of conflict of interest.

The minister will know that in some jurisdictions, particularly in the United States, where there is a lot of this, there has been a huge amount of evidence to show that the proliferation of doctor-run clinics and hospitals has been a driver of health care costs. The minister will also know that the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives — although I'm sure that the minister might in another time want to call such action "interventionist" or even "socialist," but they were in fact governed by Republican majorities at the time — put forward a moratorium on doctor-run hospitals for that reason.

A. Dix: The member for Vancouver-Burrard, I think, is anti-Republican. I'm not sure if it's capital "R" or small "r".

I guess the question that I wanted to ask the minister in this regard is whether he thinks the growing role of private clinics in B.C. is a concern; whether he believes that such clinics should be defined as hospitals, given the increasingly complex level of care they provide; and whether he is concerned about the potential cost in a health care system which is increasingly privatized, whether the money is public or not, and where doctors are referring patients to health care facilities that they in fact own.

I think that it's another side of the case brought forward by Barbara Gosling, and I'm not asking the minister to comment on that case. Where you have a more expensive level of care being provided — in fact, extra costs, extra-billing, extra care provided; in that case, the costs being borne by the person who is sick — does he think the government of British Columbia needs to take a more interventionist role in protecting patients and ensuring that those costs don't drive the health care system?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question. The question is an interesting one, and so I'll offer these comments.

About 500,000 surgeries are performed annually in the province now. Surgeries are performed in a variety of settings in British Columbia. Depending on the complexity of those procedures, they may occur in a doctor's office. Pretty much all doctors' offices are privately owned — I think all of them are privately owned — but minor surgeries can occur there.

Of course, minor surgeries are taking place in both public and private surgical settings, clinic settings. Whether it's cataracts or hernias or other minor procedures, they are commonplace now in both public and private surgical clinics.

In terms of the growth of the private sector, government certainly hasn't privatized any portion of the surgical setting. We have not, however, impeded the creation of private surgical clinics — nor did, I hasten to add, the NDP government in the 1990s. Both the B.C. Liberal government of today and the NDP government of the 1990s permitted the development of private surgical centres.

Good examples, the member would remember, are Cambie surgical, False Creek Surgical, both created in the 1990s along with, I think, about 30 others. And I think that there's been a comparable number created in the province since then.

Some specialize in things like laser surgery for eyes, and some do a broader range of surgical procedures. Though, if the member is looking for my view with respect to those private surgical centres, I think that they do fulfil a role within the health care delivery

system. They're certainly not something that I would think we would want to see eliminated.

I think that particularly for minor surgical procedures — the hernias and the cataracts, that sort of thing — they can be very, very useful in terms of taking pressure off the larger public hospital operating rooms where we need to do the more complex surgeries — the hip and knee replacements, the cardiac procedures, the cancer procedures and those sorts of things.

That is at least a general answer to the question that the member poses. It is difficult to take the U.S. statutory and social environment and try to compare it to the Canadian situation, but those are my general views in respect to the question that the member raises.

A. Dix: The question I had was an issue of the concern — and I think other jurisdictions are dealing with this concern — of self-referral and the role of doctors as business people, which many of them are. Look, you go to a general practitioner, and that's a private practice. He's not a public employee.

When we see cases, as we're seeing coming before us, of people going to doctors' offices, of being told by doctors and referred by doctors to themselves in the private sector, that approach seems, to me anyway, to be contrary to the direction we want to go. Other jurisdictions have intervened and taken very direct action on that. We certainly see it in terms of the increase in publicly paid-for and privately performed health care around the province. The minister has done that here on Vancouver Island and elsewhere, and this is a concern.

I just wanted to flag that concern with the minister because I think that issue of accountability, of dealing with the physician as investor and the physician as physician, is something that is increasingly going to be before us. I wanted to know whether the minister shared that concern and was in fact observing that, watching that, in terms of the development of policy and whether he thought that there would be a need for some steps in the relatively near future to deal with that.

That's the question I have for the minister, and I don't think he answered that part of the question, which is fair enough. So I just thought I'd give him another chance.

Hon. G. Abbott: Well, I can barely clear my throat in four minutes, so there's no danger there. I thank the member for asking the supplemental. He's absolutely right. I didn't answer that portion of his question in my previous response. Well, I will try to do it here.

Yes, we are concerned with respect to inappropriate referral of patients to private settings when the possibility of a conflict in respect of that could occur. I want to be very clear that when we had the issue with inappropriate use of the MRI, we undertook to remediate that situation. When we had the first iteration of the False Creek urgent care centre, we took steps to remediate that situation.

When we have concerns, questions, issues or allegations with respect to inappropriate behaviour on the part of practitioners, we refer that, in some cases — we talked about this yesterday, and we won't go through it again — to the Medical Services Commission for their consideration and adjudication. In other cases, we would refer it to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, if it is an ethical issue.

So yes, we share that generalized concern. It is one that we take very seriously, and we follow through appropriately.

Noting the hour, hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm delighted today to rise to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts. With me today is Deputy Minister Bruce Okabe, Assistant Deputy Minister Shauna Brouwer,

Assistant Deputy Minister Dave Galbraith and Assistant Deputy Minister Jane Milner.

Before I get into the substance of the debate, I would like to make some general remarks. When the Premier asked me to take on this ministry last August, I have to tell you that I was delighted. In my career I've worked closely with tourism operators and associations. During that time I've learned about the challenges of the businesses and the opportunities.

As you know, this portfolio is about more than tourism. It includes arts, culture, sport, ActNow B.C., archaeology, heritage volunteers and even moviemaking. It gives us the opportunity to showcase British Columbia at its best, support and encourage culture, and honour our heritage.

We have amazing experiences and wonderful stories to tell in the best place on earth. Some might think this is boastful. Well, the world doesn't seem to think so. Once again Vancouver was named one of the best places in the world to live. We are number three in the world for quality of life. We always knew that, and the world knows it too.

So what makes this such a great place to live, work and play? Well, you know, British Columbia is thriving. The economy is strong. We have the lowest unemployment rate in decades. For the 15th consecutive quarter, British Columbia has led the way in corporate confidence. We have a triple-A credit rating. People want to invest here, they want to build here, and they want to move here.

We had a big job to do when we became government in 2001, but the hard work has paid off, and now we're getting ready to welcome the world for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. Next year we celebrate 150 years of dreaming and doing. The year 2008 is the celebration of the founding of the Crown Colony of British Columbia. B.C. 2008 provides an exciting opportunity for us to explore and celebrate what it means to be British Columbians.

It's a chance to hear the stories of our relatives and reminisce about the hard work that went into forming our province. It's a chance to take our children to local cultural festivals and events and teach them about the rich cultural diversity that exists here. It's also a chance to capture the imaginations of British Columbians everywhere as we strive to shape B.C. for the future.

We're hosting a series of world-class events. This year in Burnaby and Victoria we're hosting the FIFA U-20 Soccer World Cup. Next year we're hosting the 2008 North American Indigenous Games in the Cowichan Valley, bringing 6,000 athletes and 3,000 cultural participants plus families and friends here to Vancouver Island and British Columbia.

In 2009 we've got the World Police and Fire Games. That event alone will attract 14,000 athletes to B.C. Of course, we know that those athletes don't travel alone. A further 25,000 coaches, officials, family members and other supporters are also expected to attend.

Then we've got the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games in 2010, and in 2011 we celebrate Vancouver's 125th anniversary.

This ministry works with partners in tourism, arts, culture and sports to build strong relationships and to coordinate our investments in these key sectors of our economy. We have an ambitious mandate to double tourism revenues by 2015. We've made a good start on this by working with tourism associations throughout the province in the development of the tourism action plan.

The tourism action plan contains 34 clear steps to help us reach our goal of doubling tourism revenues. Tourism contributes $9.8 billion this year to the B.C. economy. We have a great product to offer. And when people come, they want to return to experience even more parts of British Columbia.

This year we received numerous accolades from the international media, including the National Geographic adventure magazine, which says that the world's 25 best new adventures for 2007…. Cycling in the Okanagan Valley and paddling the Great Bear rain forest coast both made that list.

Luxury Travel magazine from Australia — we made the gold list for 2007; Whistler was named the world's most luxurious resort. "Frommer's Top Travel Destinations for 2007" says that the Okanagan Valley is named one of the top travel destinations. International Association of Golf Tour Operators — British Columbia is named 2007 golf destination of the year for North America.

That's what the world is saying, and here's what we've done. We've provided $25 million to the Union of B.C. Municipalities for community-based tourism initiatives. We opened the British Columbia visitor centre at Golden in May 2006 to welcome visitors travelling on the Trans-Canada Highway to B.C. We provided an additional $1 million per year starting in 2006 to upgrade and provide regularly scheduled maintenance services at recreation sites and trails that were previously maintained by users.

We are also doubling the B.C. athlete assistance program to $1.4 million, with additional funding going to athletes with a disability and athletes from provincial sport organizations and post-secondary institutions. We're also hosting the 2011 Western Canada Summer Games. Kamloops and Prince George are bidding for those games.

On the arts and culture scene, we have funding for the ArtStarts Artists in Education program. The program has brought 3,000 school shows and 100 residencies to connect artists with students in the classroom.

We have increased the B.C. Arts Council program budget by $3 million to $13.95 million. Since its inception in 1996 the B.C. Arts Council has provided more than $130 million in funding to assist artists and arts and cultural organizations throughout the province.

We're creating a new digital media centre at Great Northern Way in partnership with UBC, SFU, BCIT, the Emily Carr Institute of Design and the private sector. Film and television production in British Columbia increased more than 45 percent over 2004, contributing $1.2 billion to the provincial economy in 2006.

It's been a great year for our ministry. It's been a time of refocusing our goals and strengthening our

partnerships so that we can become and remain a first-class tourism destination. It has been a time when the world recognizes our first-class arts and cultural productions. It's been a time when we have more participation in sports and recreation than ever before. It's been a time when people have stepped up and volunteered to make their communities better.

We're looking forward to hosting the world through the FIFA U-20 Soccer World Cup through the police and firefighter games, where more than 20,000 people will visit our province, and also, of course, to hosting the Olympics.

I think we can all agree it's an exciting time to be in British Columbia, and I'm honoured to be the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts. Now I'm pleased to answer questions from my colleagues opposite.

N. Macdonald: For me, as well, it's my first year as the critic for this portfolio. Certainly, I share the minister's enthusiasm for it. It touches on a wide range of areas.

Unfortunately, with the limitations of time, we're going to be touching on certain topics only for a short period of time. I certainly don't want to indicate with that that these are not important areas. I know you have a lot of staff that have made the trip to come over here. I certainly appreciate that, and I hope to give each of them an area that they can answer. But as I say, if we just touch on something, it's certainly not because we don't feel that it's important to us or to the province.

The other thing I want to say is this is a process that is, of course, adversarial. We're going to be looking and testing the minister the best that we can. I know that he understands that fully, and I know that, as senior staff, you understand that fully as well. He and I share a bond. I guess it was last estimates, in a different portfolio. He certainly helped a young child in my area, which I very much appreciated. As we go through this, I bear that in mind. But it's my intention to test him as far as we can.

I'm going to begin with arts and culture. I know that's an important part of what we want to do with the doubling of tourism. I also know that the minister will share my interest in arts and culture.

Not this past weekend, but the weekend before we had an opportunity in Golden to host the Association of Kootenay and Boundary Local Governments, and the local arts council put on a gala where people from across our community were invited to come in and perform. Because of the Arts Council and the leadership they've shown in that community — and I think in communities across the province — they put on a spectacular show. You left it thinking, man, there is just an incredible amount of talent. It is the Arts Council which is able to provide the structure that is able to pull these people together, give them the opportunity to perform — and for them to benefit from that, but also for them to allow the community to come together and share these performances.

The first question I have, then, is around those arts councils. The Select Standing Committee on Finance recommended significant increases of investment in the arts. I believe that it specifically dealt with arts councils. After the throne speech with the budget, many of these representatives or members of the arts councils contacted me, and I'm sure contacted the minister as well. They were looking for significant increases in core funding for the B.C. Arts Council.

What I would like to ask the minister is: why were there not significant increases, and what is the minister going to do to make sure that need is met for next year?

Hon. S. Hagen: I do share the member's interest in the arts. As a matter of fact, I think it was either this spring or last fall that my daughter was honoured to be made the cultural representative for my local arts council, because she's very involved in the arts. It's a very important part of what we do.

I just want to outline what the government has done for the arts. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the government significantly increased the budget for the council in the '05-06 fiscal year. I think that was $3 million. In addition to that, we established a $25 million arts renaissance fund, which delivers support through the Olympic arts fund and provides assistance to the Arts Now program of Legacies Now, and increased arts funding in the public school system.

I want to say that the government does recognize the social and economic contribution made by the arts. This year we were able to fund a special program in the Vancouver downtown east side in partnership with the private sector.

Getting specifically to your question, the ministry is currently developing a strategic plan for the longer-term development of a sustainable arts and culture sector. It is anticipated that this strategy will be tabled in '07-08 and will include the further development of services of the B.C. Arts Council.

N. Macdonald: Part of what I want to do with this is to signal — I know that the minister has a strong commitment to the arts, and I know his situation with is family — through the minister and through these questions the fact that the NDP caucus feels strongly that this is an important investment and that we would look to the plan being something that arts councils are going to look at and see as a solution to the needs they've identified.

Tied to that, how far does the B.C. Arts Council grant applications? What sort of divide is there between the applications that you receive and the amount of money that you're able to put out? What is the gap that we're dealing with? When arts councils talk about a lack of funding, I'd be interested to know: is there an identified gap, or is that something that arts councils perceive as a need but the government doesn't necessarily have the applications to see that?

Hon. S. Hagen: The Arts Council receives approximately 1,750 requests every year and approves approximately 850.

Hon. S. Hagen: We don't have the amount of the request, because that's dealt with by the Arts Council, but the amount that was funded was $13.9 million.

What we'll move on to, then, are the concerns that have been brought to my attention and, I'm sure, to the minister's as well, about the lack of funding for existing infrastructure and for new infrastructure. There were questions about a program to meet the ministry's stated goal for developing infrastructure. As I went through, I saw it was a stated goal, and I'd be interested to hear about the programs that you have in place.

The other concerns that were raised with me were that some of the direct-access major capital grants that came out of that program were too restrictive for some professional groups. For instance, admission fees that were deemed too high put a limitation on it. So I'd be interested to hear how the ministry is going to deal with funding shortfalls for existing infrastructure and new infrastructure in the arts.

Hon. S. Hagen: As I mentioned, the ministry is putting together a strategic plan now. The position of the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Arts is relatively new, but she started working on that when she became the assistant deputy minister. We hope to have that plan in place shortly because, as you know, when you go to Treasury Board, you can't just walk in and say: "I need some money." You have to provide a plan for them. So we're hoping to work on a plan that will work for us.

N. Macdonald: Do you have a specific date, a specific time that we could be looking for that plan to be released?

N. Macdonald: Regarding Arts Partners in Creative Development, I couldn't find it in the ministry service plan, so just a question on where the money is coming from there. It seemed to me that it may come from the Spirit of B.C. arts fund. If that is the case, then I'd be interested in knowing the decision-making process to move that money to this new program.

Hon. S. Hagen: This has been just recently set up. The fund is operated, as you've said, by the Spirit of B.C. arts fund. It supports two programs: the Spirit of B.C. commissioning program and the Spirit of B.C. opportunities program.

N. Macdonald: Some of the feedback I've had — and once again, I'm sure that the minister has heard this as well — is that some in the arts community feel that it doesn't allow them to leverage money. That is done with the program, and it has already been put together in such a way that they can't use the money and then leverage it with groups such as the city of Vancouver, the federal government and the Canada Council, the Vancouver Foundation.

I don't know if you've heard that same concern. Because they're already lumped together, they feel that a fund that allows them to then take this money and go and leverage it would be more appropriate. I'd be interested to hear the minister's perspective on that.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told that the leverage funding that you talked about is already in here. Because of this structure, we were able to attract an extra million and a half from the federal government.

I've got to tell you that I'm a big believer in leverage. When I was out of politics for ten years, I started a community foundation to fund the arts, and then we started funding other things too.

J. Kwan: My question to the minister is around the integrated aboriginal cultural tourism blueprint strategy for B.C. Could the minister please advise this House: what does that strategy contain, what is the time line for the implementation of this strategy, and what's the budget associated with this strategy?

Hon. S. Hagen: Thank you for asking the question, because I think you know that part of my focus is aboriginal tourism. I have to tell you that Brenda Baptiste does a fantastic job for us in this field. The strategy was developed, has been accepted and is now working through Tourism B.C. It's funded with $5 million, and there's a three-year implementation plan for the blueprint strategy.

J. Kwan: It's $5 million over three years. Is that money coming from this ministry, or is that coming from another source? I'll just leave it at that.

Hon. S. Hagen: It's coming from the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts.

Hon. S. Hagen: If you go to the Aboriginal Tourism B.C. website, you'll see the strategy there.

Hon. S. Hagen: I have my first correction, so I have to apologize to you. The answer to the previous question was incorrect. It is actually coming from Tourism B.C.'s budget, not from the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts. There will be goals and strategies set, but they're just developing those, sort of as we speak.

J. Kwan: The $5 million to Tourism B.C. was, then, the money that the Premier announced at the UBCM, or is it a separate pot of money?

Hon. S. Hagen: Tourism B.C. is funding it from their existing budget. They have $50 million a year, and this is a three-year program. I can get you the split. I think it is a million dollars the first year and then two and two. But it is split over three years.

J. Kwan: What is the ministry's contribution, then, towards this initiative, if it's a Tourism B.C. initiative? That's what it is sounding like to me.

Hon. S. Hagen: Tourism B.C., as you know, is the marketing arm of this ministry. The government provides the money for Tourism B.C. to operate. So indirectly the money comes from the government, but it's adjudicated by Tourism B.C.

Here's the implementation plan for Aboriginal Tourism. It's on a three-tier system. Tier 1, the startup product stage, includes initiatives to encourage entrepreneurs and cultural tourism to develop product and obtain education, training and practical job experience. Tier 2, the existing but not market-ready product stage, involves providing training, mentoring, hands-on business experience, product development and access to markets. Tier 3, the market-ready product stage, involves activities to provide strategic direction, marketing tools and programs, and access to markets and key distribution channels.

My staff in the ministry work together with the staff at Aboriginal Tourism B.C., in partnership with them, to help them reach these tiers.

J. Kwan: Is it a grant process, then, for individuals or organizations to apply?

Hon. S. Hagen: The process hasn't been defined yet. As I said, they're still working on that process.

Hon. S. Hagen: As I said, it is still in its early stages, but we expect to be able to have that done in the next six months.

J. Kwan: Just so I can sum up, there's a $5 million program to which money comes from this ministry to the Tourism B.C. arm of the ministry. It supports an aboriginal cultural tourism blueprint strategy to which the measurable outcomes of success with the strategy are not yet known. We don't know how one can go about accessing the money. The time line for this will be likely forthcoming, in terms of how that process will unfold, in six months, and we've dedicated $5 million to it. Have I summed up this correctly?

Hon. S. Hagen: No, I don't think so. I think the member opposite is being much too critical of Aboriginal Tourism B.C. and the people who are working on this. This is a big new step, a huge jump for Aboriginal Tourism B.C. It's a great jump. People out there are excited; first nations people are excited.

There are lots of opportunities out there, and I can point to examples like Osoyoos and other places where the opportunities are almost endless. We're working with Aboriginal Tourism B.C. to help them achieve what they want and need to achieve to assist first nations and move them into the economic mainstream of the province.

J. Kwan: Actually, I'm reserving my judgment on the project itself until I've seen the outcomes, so I think it is incorrect for the minister to assert that I'm being critical of it.

I'm simply trying to get some information about where we're at with this strategy, where we're going with it and what stage we are at. It seems to me that right now, from the answers the minister has given me, to which there are still a lot of unanswered questions, the minister doesn't yet know or have the information related to it.

That's why I want to ask these questions, because I don't know the answer. Obviously, if the minister doesn't know, we won't know for some time yet — for British Columbians to find out — exactly how this would unfold.

Maybe I could ask the minister this. When the minister gets that information in terms of the six-month time line with respect to the process of how one could access the $5 million…. If it's a grant process, who adjudicates that process and the measurable outcomes of success, etc.?

I presume the minister will be getting some sort of report accordingly. Will he table that information to the critic so that we can actually have that information so that we are informed around this particular initiative?

Hon. S. Hagen: Certainly Aboriginal Tourism B.C. will make that information available through their website, because we actually want the opposition to be supportive of this.

N. Macdonald: The minister mentioned the renaissance fund. Now, I understand the renaissance fund is an endowment program. One of the questions that I had raised with me was…. While an endowment fund may work for some of the larger metropolitan arts groups, it was identified as inappropriate for many of the rural arts groups.

The question would be: how do you see an endowment program working for a small rural arts group? Is it something that you see working, or do you have other plans in place to deal with that same requirement but for smaller groups?

Hon. S. Hagen: Good question. I live in a semi-rural community myself, and that's always a question of sustainability, especially in smaller communities.

What I've noticed, though, over my experience is that groups like the Vancouver Foundation, for instance, shouldn't really be called the Vancouver Foundation because they actually fund communities

throughout the province. The arts renaissance fund is a fund that will provide matching money for money raised in the community. That money can be raised in the community or outside the community, but the purpose of this fund is to match those funds that are raised.

N. Macdonald: As I say, to touch lightly on some of these topics and then move on doesn't indicate in any way the importance we've put on these. Clearly, the arts councils are one issue that I've raised with you. The arts councils recognize that you're in the midst of a plan but have, I think, made a very strong case for the need for more funding. I know you'll take that forward to Treasury Board and make sure that interest is recognized and put to those who are making the decision.

I want to move on to another piece that's of particular importance to me and that relates to an important issue, especially, again, in rural areas. This is with local museums. Here again, I know the minister has an interest in local museums. Since taking over the role as critic, I've visited a number of excellent local museums. One of the communities I represent actually has four museums. In pretty well any community that you visit, you'll find at least one. These are places where the history of individuals as well as the community is kept.

They are facing particular challenges. They would point to cuts in the first term by this government. They would point, as well, to a lack of support by the current federal government. Regardless of what the cause is, and I think one of the causes is simply demographics….

The people that volunteer are getting older and finding it more difficult. It's clear in speaking to each of them individually that they come to the same themes. They don't have the core funding that they need. They get support from local government; they consistently say they get assistance there. They will point to the federal government — which is, of course, not your responsibility — but they also point to the provincial government, and they say that there's not the support. It makes it very difficult for these museums to continue. I think that we would all recognize they are of great importance to small rural communities.

I put that to the minister, partially as a way of advocating for funding there but also as an opportunity for the minister to explain the plan that he has to make sure that small rural museums are going to be properly financed.

Hon. S. Hagen: Let me first of all extend an invitation to the member to come to the Comox Valley, because we also have at least four museums. We have the Cumberland Museum, which is fascinating because of the coalmining history. We have the Courtenay Museum. My wife, as you know, has been very active and had to resign as chairman of the board, actually, because I'm in cabinet. We have the Comox Museum, and then we have the Comox Air Force Museum, which is, of course, the military aspect of the Comox Valley.

Of course, the big highlight at the Courtenay museum is — I'm trying to think of the name of that animal or the skeleton they've got — the elasmosaur. An elasmosaur, for all of those watching out in TV land, is a seagoing dinosaur. One was unearthed by a Ministry of Highways employee's daughter, as a matter of fact, along the river in the Comox Valley. They found virtually the whole skeleton. It's very unique. It's the first one found west of the Rockies.

They're actually on the dinosaur trail in Canada. They're the number one visiting spot on the dinosaur trail. I don't know if your family is into that or not, but I certainly extend an invitation to you and your family to come to the Comox Valley, and I will personally arrange for a tour through that.

Coming back to the question at hand, there's a total of $1.615 million that's distributed by the Arts Council to support public museums around the province for core funding, and for public access and education.

N. Macdonald: To leave the minister with this, we're only going to touch on a few of these topics so that it's clear I've made the point to the minister.

What I'm consistently hearing is that with the current levels of funding and the programs that are available — I know the minister gets the letters as well — there are issues with, in some cases, how the programs are run. There are small ones that I'm sure the minister can look at and fix. There's also the overwhelming view that there is a lack of adequate funding from the province; that there needs to be more; and that especially with the volunteer base aging, if it doesn't happen, it's going to make these museums an increasing challenge. As we move towards a goal of increasing tourism, it's clear that part of the attraction to small communities is the opportunity to learn about the history and the heritage of the community.

Related to that, I'll just move on to another quick topic, which is a number of heritage sites that we have around the province, some real world-class sites. In my riding we have Fort Steele. Of course, across the province you could point to many of these. There again are concerns from people about the maintenance of the province's heritage sites, concerns again about funding. I would invite the minister to address those concerns and to let us know how the province intends to make sure that these heritage sites stay to the highest standard possible.

Hon. S. Hagen: As I'm sure the member knows, the federal government designates heritage sites. We expect the federal government to step up to the plate on this one as well. They apparently are coming out with a policy or a program; I'm not sure which. It's not out there yet, but we're anxiously waiting to see that. We'll continue to work with them and continue to press them.

N. Macdonald: Another concern that we talked about earlier but one I'd be interested in hearing as well from the minister is around archaeology. There are concerns around the province about the capacity of

the archaeological branch and whether it's able to deal in a timely manner…. It's from both perspectives. I've heard it from a first nations perspective, where there's concern about making sure that first nations history and our history are properly dealt with, and I've also heard from the perspective of landowners who feel that a more timely response on concerns….

I'd be interested in knowing the number of people that are in the archaeological branch, just to see if the number that I have here is correct, and if the minister has plans for improvements in that branch and making sure that they have the resources to deal with things in a timely and efficient manner.

Hon. S. Hagen: This also is a topic of interest to me. We have added one person in that branch, but I think the more significant answer is that because of the new relationship that we are in with first nations around the province, the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and I agree that it's time to look at the Heritage Conservation Act.

The Minister of Aboriginal Relations sent out a letter back in December to pretty well all of the first nations leadership — the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and the First Nations Summit — informing them that we want to work together with them in making any necessary, required changes to the act.

I agree with you that there are some concerns coming from first nations, but there are also concerns coming from property owners. So the challenge is going to be to come up with changes to the act that work for — I don't want to say both sides — all parties.

N. Macdonald: What's the process that you see undertaking to decide on that legislation? Is it something that you're in the midst of or something that you intend to begin? What sort of process does the minister see as the appropriate one?

Hon. S. Hagen: The process for developing legislation is, you know, getting information, then drafting it. But I think in the case of working with first nations, it's a little different. We want to involve first nations not in drafting the legislation but certainly in providing their ideas to what the legislation should say. At the same time we want to make sure that that's balanced with property owners and others.

So I think this process is a little different. I've spoken to several first nations leaders myself who have an interest in this field. There are some leaders in the first nations communities who do have an interest here, and we want to make sure that we understand what their interests are. We want to ensure that we understand what their concerns are and where they feel the legislation falls short.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm advised that my staff think it won't be ready for next spring but will, hopefully, be ready for the spring after that — because of the length of time it takes to develop this type of legislation.

N. Macdonald: Maybe we could spend a bit of time and move on to tourism. Maybe we'll move into the action plan. Just a couple of quick questions on that. I'll give you a chance to reorganize.

Just looking at action 1 of the February 2007 Tourism Action Plan, it states the need to reduce the amount of time and paperwork required to approve a tourism-related land use application. This includes making it easier to gain access to Crown lands for commercial purposes and harmonizing regulatory and policy regimes for tourism operations in parks and on other Crown lands.

Of course, with the regulations, I think everyone would agree that you want regulations that make sense, but with the complications of operating on Crown land and overlapping interests, it's naturally going to be complicated. Certainly, in speaking to the Council of Tourism Associations, they've raised concerns that would be quite different from other groups that are also using Crown lands.

The question that the public asks and that you get from other groups, as well, is around assurances that the minister can give that the parks and other Crown lands are going to be protected for all user groups in any deregulation or as you try to increase the flow of traffic and people to, in some cases, fragile nature areas, but also on Crown land, where other interests are being looked at. How do you make that all mesh?

Hon. S. Hagen: Just before I answer that question…. We made some switches over here, so I want to introduce Jim Yardley, who is my Assistant Deputy Minister of Tourism; we have Rod Harris, who is the CEO of Tourism B.C.; and Len Dawes, who is the comptroller for Tourism B.C.

This is actually something I know quite a bit about. I'm not insinuating I don't know much about other stuff. But as you know, I spent three years as the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.

The question of land use is a very interesting field to enter into. What I do know is that on anything to do with tourism on the land base and the use of the land with regard to tourism activities, there's a very, very consultative process that takes place, where all stakeholders are engaged. If there's a prospective conflict, we want to try and avoid that by involving everybody at the table in the discussion. We also take into consideration the land use plans that are in place and all of those discussions that have taken place.

With regard to parks: parks are parks. As you know, there's an initiative, or they're looking at an initiative now, with regard to activities in parks — but that, to my knowledge, is still underway.

The Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts is working with B.C. Parks to harmonize commercial recreation policies for tenures that straddle parks and protected areas, to promote consistency in administering these tenures. I'm not sure if that's where you were

going with your question, because there are some differences with tenures inside and outside of parks. We're working with Parks to try and harmonize those.

N. Macdonald: Of course, this is a huge area, and I realize the complexity of trying to get this right. In terms of harmonization — to pick up on what you were just talking about — are we, then, talking about heli-ski operations, where within parks they would be looking for the same sort of tenure they have outside of parks — issues like that?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, and as you know, industry has asked for that. We have not come to an agreement on that.

N. Macdonald: Okay, so that's something still being worked on. Now, one of the concerns that's raised locally in my area, but I think you would find it throughout the interior, is about the number of people that are on the ground.

I know in the past, before 2001, we had a lot more people on the ground in rural areas, and many of these people did important work making sure that the consultative process was one that worked. You could have a political argument about what took place next.

Nevertheless, does it concern the minister about the number of people that are there on the ground, the lack of biologists and the other forestry people that used to take leadership roles in making sure that, first off, there was a public process? I know the public process exists now, but you hear very often on the ground about many of these positions that used to be there — they would take key roles or play a key part in making sure you would have a plan that would work — and that those people aren't there.

Does the minister have that concern, or are there plans to make sure that there are more people put in place? I'd just leave that with you and ask you to respond.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told that in this ministry the numbers have remained stable. You may be talking about numbers in other ministries, which is difficult for me to comment on.

I will say this. I have a lot of meetings with a lot of different proponents and people who have ideas. I don't remember that I've had any complaints about what you might perceive as a lack of staff in the field. The attitude that's conveyed to me is that people are…. I mean, there are frustrations in going through a system, a number of approvals. But it hasn't translated to a lack of people — certainly not in this ministry.

N. Macdonald: I guess, even though it's not within this ministry, there would be other ministries. Certainly in our area there were a number of forestry people, and it was forestry simply because they had people on the ground that would take the lead in land use planning. I think with any tourist development that you have that uses Crown lands, they immediately become concerned about the other uses that are there.

I know that forestry played a key part in bringing the community together to talk about things such as: if you were starting a lodge or you had a heli-skiing operation, well, you had tremendous concern about where snowmobilers were going to go. You have, of course, hunters groups. You have all sorts of different groups that have a slightly different perspective on how the land base should be used.

Of course, they have a right to have that perspective because it's public land. That's the complication. Now, if it's not forestry taking the lead in that — and I could be corrected, and I guess the minister wouldn't be responsible for knowing whether it's forestry taking the lead — then the question is: do you feel that you have enough people on the ground to know about how these overlaps are avoided?

Not to throw too many questions at you, but it's a simple one: how do you interact with the Ministry of Environment to make sure that the environmental concerns that the people will naturally have about any development are addressed? Do we have enough biologists? Are you confident that the Ministry of Environment has those people on the ground as well?

Hon. S. Hagen: We have the integrated land management bureau. In our ministry, when we get a request, we refer it to the interagency management committee. That's made up of Agriculture, Environment, our ministry, Mines, and Forests. All of those people are in the same room.

Part of this is to end up with a balanced decision at the end of the day. Every one of those ministries brings their concerns to the table. Certainly from what I've heard, the system seems to be working well. I guess from time to time you're going to find somebody who isn't happy, but generally speaking, these people make decisions pretty well every day.

N. Macdonald: Just from action 29 where it talks about provincial standards for ecotourism…. Excuse me for jumping around, but do you have plans to come up with enforceable rules around standards for ecotourism?

I see that it's growing, and it's natural that it would be an area of growth. Do you have plans for something like a certification or to set standards that are enforceable — or is that already in place?

Hon. S. Hagen: The ministry is preparing a concept paper, which I haven't seen yet. But I agree with you. We want to make sure that decisions that are made are good for the environment and also good for business. We hope to have this in place within the next 12 months.

N. Macdonald: The third key area on page 12 of the Tourism Action Plan says: "By 2015 more than 84,000 new tourism jobs will need to be filled B.C., usually at starting salaries that have historically been lower than

those offered by competing employers." You know that we have suggested a higher minimum wage. What sort of plans do you have to make sure that these jobs are going to be possible for Canadians to fill?

To put it in context, I know there's an element of "the market will take care of this." The other part of it, though, is around the fact that…. I can give you an example of a community like Invermere, where you have jobs that are there for people to take, but it's really not possible for people to find housing at a cost that would allow them to take those jobs.

Year after year you have businesses saying that this is simply impossible for them. Even though very often the wages do come above the minimum wage, I think there's still a point around having a minimum wage that's reasonable, especially in the tourism industry. I would put it to you that $10 an hour is reasonable, but even if you were to argue this, there still needs to be a strategy for those workers.

I just have questions around what sort of thoughts you have to make sure that businesses that need workers have the workers that are going to be available, especially in communities where the cost of housing and the cost of living in general very often are going to be prohibitive and driven by factors outside of the community.

In my case, in the East Kootenay, it's driven by Calgary and the money that's there and the fact that people can come in and buy second homes that many residents in the area find impossible to afford. So what's the strategy there?

Hon. S. Hagen: We could have a philosophical argument about the minimum wage for a long time. Having said that, yesterday morning I had the privilege of going to BCIT to talk to the tourism class where there are 60 young people graduating in two weeks. Every one of them had a job — in a broad cross-section of fields. I was actually quite amazed by the cross-section of fields represented in that room.

There is no question that we're going to be looking for 84,000 or more workers over the next few years, with the booming economy in B.C. This is a great time to be looking for a job because you've got jobs looking for people, and therefore, they're going to pay you whatever they need to pay you to get you to come and work for them. The last time I was in Fort St. John, the Taco Bell had closed down because they couldn't hire workers at $17 an hour.

That's why the government started go2, where we involve a broad cross-section of people. We have the supported initiatives like the Move On Up campaign to encourage young people that careers in tourism and the hospitality industry are viable and rewarding.

We probably won't be able to fill these jobs from within B.C., so we'll be looking elsewhere in Canada for people either to come back to B.C. if they left B.C. or, if they want, to move to B.C. It's not unlike the construction industry, actually. The jobs are looking for people, and they're going to have to pay whatever the market demands they pay to get people, and it probably won't be the minimum wage.

N. Macdonald: Like I say, I don't want to get into a philosophical argument, but I would point out that in our areas the communities are actually shrinking in size, and by that I mean the number of permanent residents. So it's not as simple as the fact that there is a job on offer.

It's a more complex pot. It has to do with the schools, hospitals and other services that are there. It has to do with affordable housing. If those are in place, then you will find people willing to come in and take the jobs that are available and the jobs that need to be filled for businesses to be successful.

I would put it to the minister: while there are jobs there that need people to fill them — and that's a really positive thing, and people are happy about that — there is another part and another reason why they don't step in and fill them. It's simply that they cannot. They don't find the services, and child care fits into this as well. I'd put it to the minister that that's part of what needs to be thought through, too, if we're going to move forward into a place where tourism continues to grow as an important industry for the province.

I'll give you a chance to respond to that, if you want. If you don't, I can just move on.

N. Macdonald: Okay. Just to turn to B.C. 2008, if we can. Here again, I don't know if you need to change staff — just a couple of questions on that.

Hon. S. Hagen: I just wanted to introduce Charles Parkinson, whom you've met, hopefully. He's in charge of 2008.

N. Macdonald: So the 150th anniversary of British Columbia — not including Vancouver Island — but the Colony of British Columbia, I guess it was called.

N. Macdonald: No, no. It's just British Columbia, I think, unless my history is wrong. My understanding is that it's the mainland of British Columbia, and Vancouver Island came in 1866 or something like that — so sometime later.

The idea of the 150th anniversary of becoming a Crown colony. I just have a question where the idea came from for that sort of a celebration.

Hon. S. Hagen: Unlike the member opposite, I'm old enough to remember 1958. I can remember that I was 18 years old in 1958. I actually remember that it was quite a celebration in the province. It seems to me that it was a Century Sam and Century Sue that travelled around the province. Century Sam owned Searle's Shoes in Courtenay, and he was an actor from Barkerville. He was a part-time actor.

I remember that part about 1958, but it's sort of a natural thing to celebrate every 50 years. The city of

Vancouver is going to celebrate its 125th birthday in 2011. So they are doing it every 25 years. It's a natural occurrence to celebrate every 100 years or every 150 years.

N. Macdonald: To be more specific, then, what's the genesis of the idea of this? Although it may seem a natural occurrence, is it then the intention to celebrate the 150th anniversary of 1966 — coming together?

I understand that celebrations are something that can attract people to the province, and that's a very reasonable thing to do and a very positive thing to do. I guess the question I have is: where does this come from? Does it come from out of your ministry? Is it an idea that comes from a particular group that's pushed government to do it? Does it come out of the Premier's office? What is the genesis? Who came up with the idea? And when was it put forward?

Hon. S. Hagen: Nobody seems to be quite sure where the original genesis came from, but once it started floating up to the surface, then the ministry undertook consultations with communities around the province to see if there was any interest in celebrating it. Apparently there was.

I know when I met — remember when the UBCM met here last fall? — with about 40 municipal councils during the UBCM, at every meeting, 2008 came up. These were communities right from Fort St. John to Prince Rupert to Cranbrook to Dawson Creek to Vancouver Island.

It was sort of interesting because people were a lot more excited than I thought they were going to be about it. They really were excited about it even though parts of the province, as you've identified, weren't necessarily included in that first colony. But they all want to be a part of the celebration.

I didn't have one community that said: "No, we're not going to participate." I'm trying to remember which community it was. What's the community just south of Fort St. John?

Hon. S. Hagen: Taylor is just north of Dawson Creek. They latched onto this idea because they said: "Well, what we're going to celebrate as part of 2008 is that it is 50 years since the railroad came to Taylor." So they're going to celebrate the 150th, but they're going to focus in on the 50th anniversary of rail coming to Taylor, which I thought was really neat, but which I thought was interesting, too.

N. Macdonald: Okay. What I can tell you from local government is if there is any opportunity for funding to celebrate something, I think our experience is — coming out of local government — that any opportunity is something people will be excited about.

I'm still interested in the genesis. I do want to understand where the idea came from. I understand that's something that the government may not have on record. But if you do come across that, I'd be interested in hearing where the idea first came from.

I know I could probably find it fairly easily within the figures provided in the service plan, but if you could provide me with the total cost for B.C. 2008 involving all of the programs for not only local government, but for the various promotions that you have planned, including the website and so on?

Hon. S. Hagen: The total budget for 2008 is $28 million. Of that, $20 million is the Spirit Squares program, which is administered by the Ministry of Community Services.

N. Macdonald: All of the budget, then, for B.C. 2008 is contained within the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts, or are there any other ministries that would be involved?

Hon. S. Hagen: The total budget is $28 million; $20 million is being administered and comes out of Community Services because they're used to doing grants that municipalities apply for. Then, $8 million comes out of our ministry.

Now, we have partner ministries — other ministries who want to participate in celebrating 2008. That participation might be a bit of money out of their own budget, or it might be just an idea that they have.

N. Macdonald: In terms of television advertisement related to B.C. 2008, do you have a figure for total government television advertising related to B.C. 2008?

Hon. S. Hagen: My ministry staff are presently talking to PAB. They don't have a dollar amount yet, but we hope to have that before too long.

N. Macdonald: Can you give me an idea about the scope of the advertising that would go on throughout 2008, and perhaps leading up to that? I assume it would go on throughout the summer of 2008 and perhaps starting earlier. You must have some idea of the scope if you're talking to public affairs. You must have some idea of the amounts of money that we're talking about, the scope. If you could give me details on that, I'd appreciate it.

Hon. S. Hagen: This has not been scoped out yet by PAB. We're waiting for that. When we get that, then my staff will be negotiating with them for an amount. But they will set the scope for us.

N. Macdonald: The minister has indicated to me that the public affairs bureau is taking the lead. Will

the minister be involved in choosing the ad agency that will be doing the advertising or the television ads? Will he be participating in that, or is it something that the public affairs bureau will be handling?

Hon. S. Hagen: If the question is whether the minister's life is going to be recorded and filmed and transmitted around the province, the answer is no. As the member knows, I'm sure PAB has agencies of record that they deal with. Our ministry will not be a part of making that choice.

N. Macdonald: I can understand the centennial for the Crown colony. The 150th I can accept. I mean, there's always a good reason to have a party, and I know that these sorts of events do draw people to British Columbia, which is a positive thing.

I guess the question I would have is: given the new relationship, what sort of consultation did the ministry have with first nations? And was there any sense that there might be conflicted emotions around what was being put forward?

I think the minister would recognize the possibility, especially given a recent debate about the murals, that first nations may see the establishment of the Crown colony in a slightly different way than others in the province. Given that the government has said they are interested in a new relationship, what sort of consultation took place? If you could be specific, I would appreciate that.

Hon. S. Hagen: After I became minister and before I went ahead with the plan, I consulted with Grand Chief Ed John and with Brenda Baptiste at Aboriginal Tourism B.C. I would not have proceeded without them coming back to me and saying: "We're really supportive of this. We think it's a good idea, and we think it's a good opportunity for first nations as well."

N. Macdonald: Within the website there are ideas around how first nations are going to participate. Which groups are you working with within the first nations to bring about this participation?

Hon. S. Hagen: These are not necessarily in any order, but we're going to have a walk of reconciliation, so we are working with the People Together Foundation. We are working with Aboriginal Tourism B.C., and of course we are working with the North American aboriginal games that are coming to Cowichan, because we're building a lot of 2008 activities around that.

N. Macdonald: In terms of other promotions, the website I would assume is something the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts is responsible for. It's funded out of their ministry, and the minister can correct me if that assumption is wrong.

I assume there's also going to be newspaper advertising, a fairly extensive campaign there as well as perhaps with magazines and different promotions. Can you first give me a sense, if this ministry is responsible, of the scope of that advertising and the cost? If it is not responsible and it's a different ministry or if it's public affairs, if you could let me know the group that's responsible.

Hon. S. Hagen: That, again, is being dealt with by PAB. I was just told by my staff that phase 2 of the website is being launched this weekend, so I would encourage you to have a look at that. Then there will be phase 3 at a later date.

N. Macdonald: All right. Well, I think the concern I have around first nations participation…. I think the term I used was "conflicted views" that they may have about the event being celebrated. It sounds like the ministry has considered that and that they are cognizant of those issues. Certainly, any celebration is one that is enjoyed and, like I say, especially if local government is able to have flexibility in terms of how they use the money. They will always find a way of bringing people together and making the event a success.

I still do have questions around the television campaign — how that's going to be used, how it's going to unfold, who gets the contracts — but I understand from the answers the minister has given that these are things that I would best direct to the ministry responsible for the public affairs bureau, which I assume is the Premier's office.

Maybe we'll move on then to a question about Super, Natural B.C., which is a brand name that the minister is responsible for. Super, Natural B.C. is very well-known and marketable slogan. It's one that the ministry is responsible for. I know that it is being used, but it is often replaced with "The best place on earth" slogan. I see it on the signs, and it is widely used. It is obviously the marketing tool that the ministry has decided to push — I don't know — to replace Super, Natural B.C. I assume that it's not the case, but I'd be interested to hear if it was.

The question I have about the slogan "The best place on earth" is: what study was done to test whether it was an effective marketing label or not? I realize that these labels are incredibly important. I would think that even in the past, with Super, Natural B.C…. Either that was tested and found to be very effective, or we just got lucky when it was chosen, because I think it is one that really encapsulates what B.C. is about.

I'd be interested in hearing the due diligence that was on the on "The best place on earth" slogan.

Hon. S. Hagen: The question was with regard to "The best place on earth" logo — right?

Okay, those questions need to be directed to PAB, because it wasn't our ministry that produced it.

N. Macdonald: There are a couple of things with PAB that I have concerns about. Maybe I'll just lay

them out. In terms of 2008 and the celebration that is going on, I think back to 2004 and what the public affairs bureau did with an event over 2004, pre-election, where a tremendous amount of money was spent on advertising that flowed into an election period.

For 2008 I have the same concerns around PAB — that you would have an election campaign that seemed to flow pretty easily into…. In 2008 you have a campaign that leads pretty easily into an election campaign. In 2004 I had concerns around it, and I would hope that the minister as the minister responsible would have some input.

It sounds like he doesn't, and I think that's unfortunate because I think your view would be different than PAB's, to be quite honest.

It's the same thing with "The best place on earth" slogan. The slogan is tightly tied to the B.C. Liberals. I think that if we invest too much in that, there is some danger in that becoming our slogan when it's, in many people's minds, so closely tied to the B.C. Liberals. Governments come and go, and it's a shame to invest in a motto like that and find that that investment is wasted when government changes.

To give you an example of it being a political statement, I drive by the sign coming into B.C. regularly — I fly out of Calgary — and it is a sign that is regularly vandalized. They go after that slogan. I don't know if that means anything. In my own mind it's a political slogan much different than "Super, Natural B.C.," which I think everyone would agree is not in any way….

It makes sense — I know that you'll disagree — that it's the public affairs bureau that's running that rather than the Ministry of Tourism, but I think it's unfortunate. I think that it would be better if we invested in slogans. That's not really a question; it's more of a political statement.

I do feel that it's money that would be better spent with "Super, Natural B.C." That's something where, like I say, I would have assumed there was some sort of marketing that went on.

If the public affairs bureau did it, I would ask the minister to maybe, in his capacity as minister of the Crown, go to public affairs and get the study that was done that shows that "The best place on earth" is a slogan that has been tested and is going to be effective in marketing British Columbia.

Not only as a political statement but also as just a motto in general, I find difficulties with it. It does seem…. I wouldn't even say boastful. In some ways it seems insecure to me to be standing up and saying that. I think that there are better things that we could use to market ourselves.

What I would ask the minister — I guess I'm coming in a very long way to the question — is: can he use his position as minister to get the study, which I would assume the public affairs bureau did, to show that this is the appropriate slogan to represent British Columbian tourism, as an invitation to people to come to our province, and that the investment that is made around that slogan — and it's substantial — is going to pay off in the long term.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm sure that the member knows that he has ways of getting that information. Actually, I found your comments interesting because I was in a government previous to this one in the '80s, and I think I know the Tourism Minister who came up with "Super, Natural B.C."

Hon. S. Hagen: Well, it is good, and Tourism B.C. uses "Super, Natural B.C." as part of their marketing. But when I was in the Social Credit government, I never really looked upon "Super, Natural B.C." or "Beautiful B.C." — which is on our licence plates — as a political sort of thing. Until today, actually — until now — I didn't ever look at "The best place on earth" as a political statement.

I'm not saying you are not entitled to feel that way because, obviously, you are. I'd never thought of it before. I think that all three sort of personify British Columbia. I was born and raised here. I think that this is "The best place on earth," but I also think that "Super, Natural British Columbia" describes British Columbia extremely well and that "Beautiful B.C." does as well.

N. Macdonald: Bearing in mind the time, maybe we'll move from Super, Natural B.C. to the resort strategy and just spend a bit of time talking about resort strategy.

I'll again allow to you reorganize. I apologize to people that were called up here and didn't really have an opportunity to participate.

There was a lot of debate over section 16 of Bill 11. As I said at the time, that would have been an interesting discussion to have around the bill. I know that it was included within the community services series of amendments to various local government acts and perhaps appropriately so, but it would have been good to have a discussion around the implications of Bill 11. Maybe we'll take a bit of time to address that now.

The first concern that was raised — and it ties into the deregulation as well — is a concern about public access to land. The concern is that very often these resorts…. A big part of them, of course, is real estate. That is often the driving factor in their development and a big part of what they are. I think everybody recognizes that it's often a permanent real estate development, and there are lots of implications. One of them is for local residents — the fact that what was once public land is no longer public land.

That's the first thing I would ask the minister. In his mind how has he reconciled the government's stated

desire for more resorts with the tension with local people wanting access to public land? How is he going to find the right balance using the tools that he has?

Hon. S. Hagen: As you know, I'm sure, about 95 percent of the land in B.C. is Crown land. We have the largest percentage of Crown land outside of North Korea and Cuba, I think. There is a lot of Crown land. Just because we do a tenure with a proponent doesn't mean the public is shut out. The public still has access to that land. Now, there may be some controls because of safety or the environment, but the public is not shut out from that land just because of a tenure.

N. Macdonald: Not to disagree with you, but in practical terms and for very good reasons, you are naturally going to have restrictions on what people can do. For instance, if you have not so much heli-skiing but a wilderness lodge, then you are naturally going to want to limit access with regards to snowmobiling. It's perfectly reasonable that you would have that, because people are going to pay a lot of money for an experience that doesn't include snowmobiles. Within communities we can sit down and work that out. There are balances. You therefore cannot have too many of these areas.

Similarly, you have people that feel it's very important to their life — and, in fact, it's part of their culture — to be hunting. If you are going to do that, then there are very good reasons why you would not do it near a major new resort — for instance, Panorama Resort. You would logically not want people in there hunting. Therefore, each time you make a decision on a resort development, it has implications for the public and how they can use that land. That ties into forestry. It ties into all sorts of pressures on that land base.

So coming back to the bill and the tools that you now have — I think the minister knows that I had real concerns about that tool — how do you make sure that you find the balance? I think one of the balances that was removed with the bill is the balance that local government gives.

I understand the frustration sometimes with overlapping powers. I understand how you want to do something, and sometimes it seems that there are restrictions on what you can do from local governments that seem unreasonable and interfere with what you want to do in terms of a plan. How are you going find the balance if, with section 16 of Bill 11, you remove local government — by this I mean the regional districts — from decision-making on the creation of these new resorts?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I'm sure the member knows, any proposal has to go through the environmental assessment process. Part of the environmental assessment process is to work on that balance of land use and the various interests on the land.

N. Macdonald: If I characterize this incorrectly, then the minister can correct me. The environmental assessment process, as I understand it, is set up to look at a project and find ways of mitigating the issues that are put forward.

At some point there needs to be either a go or a not-go, but the environmental assessment process isn't necessarily a way of saying go or not-go. It's a way of saying: "Look, what you plan to do, if it's going to be done properly, needs these things done as well."

I certainly am aware of projects that have had literally hundreds of things that they needed to do to address concerns that were raised. But I didn't see it as a process that necessarily said yes or no. It seemed to say: "Okay, it's going to go ahead, but to make it work, the environmental assessment process will lay out the mitigations that were needed."

Now, if I've mischaracterized that, I'd be interested…. I'd also be interested to know if a project had ever been turned down by the environmental assessment process. That's something that you hear, but I've never heard that from a minister in terms of how that process is going to work. So I'd be interested in hearing the minister's perspective.

Hon. S. Hagen: I used to be responsible for the environmental assessment office. I'm trying to think of an instance where a project was turned down, and I can't. There may or may not be; I don't know.

I think it's somewhat the way you characterized it in that they do work with proponents to say: "Okay, if you want to get from here to there, here's how you can get there by mitigating certain things." But I don't think anybody should assume that there's an automatic yes at the end. If there are enough circumstances that can't be mitigated, particularly from an environmental point of view, then it's not going to go ahead.

The process works in such a way that…. Usually there are things that can be mitigated. That's just sort of the land that we live on. But I don't think you should assume that it's a yes and not a no.

N. Macdonald: This is obviously a topic that interests me a great deal. I think it's a topic around an issue that is really very, very complicated and difficult to get perfectly correct. A big issue in my area and one that we often use to talk about this…. Certainly I used Jumbo as an example. The process around Jumbo, I think we would all agree, is in many ways flawed. That's just through things changing as you went along, but it did raise some interesting questions as to when you say yes and when you say no.

My characterization of the environmental assessment process is that it really didn't give the opportunity to say no. The proponent entered into it, I assume, with a presumption of yes. But you still needed at some point to have the owner of the land make that decision. I think it's reasonable that the owner of the land, which is the province, would include local government in making that decision.

You could argue about when that's best done: at the beginning of a project, before somebody spends a

tremendous amount of money, or at the end. I would suggest that it makes more sense at the beginning. You could argue about how that process worked to make sure that it was balanced so the province could meet the goals that it had at the same time as recognizing the needs of local people.

That's part of the question I have with the strategy that you seem to have. You seem to have removed local government. I understand the frustration and the reason you have done it, yet I wonder where the balance is. Where is the opportunity for local people to have their issues recognized?

The environmental assessment process recognizes important interests, but I would say that you still have a local interest that shouldn't be dismissed as NIMBYism. There are obviously important issues that need to be addressed. So what's the mechanism for addressing that?

Hon. S. Hagen: The resort municipality legislation that the member talks about is simply another tool in the tool kit that we have for us to be able to work with local governments, whether they be regional districts or municipalities.

It's premature to say whether or not it would be used in the case of Jumbo. Staff in the ministry are currently reviewing the master plan for Jumbo, and they are also consulting with first nations on this project. Until this process is complete, no decisions will be made by any level of government with regard to this project.

N. Macdonald: To use this as an example, because I think it is one that has sat there for a long time…. I just read recently about an issue up north where — I don't think it's even come to you — there is the discussion of using section 16 of Bill 11. I can't even give you the name, but I know also on the Sunshine Coast there was another one that was talked about.

In each of those areas there will be slightly different concerns, but in each of them the general concern was about the fact that locals, through their local government, wouldn't have an important say.

So I just bring that to you again. I know it's another tool, but it's a tool that the government did not have before. The government always could use Bill 75, the Significant Projects Streamlining Act. But I think the government has decided quite correctly that that's an act that will be used in only the most extreme circumstances. I would argue it shouldn't be there. Very clearly, since the government has not used it, they recognize that it's something they would only use under the most extreme circumstances.

By bringing in section 16 of Bill 11, implicitly it's something that you plan on using. I guess I come back to that question: how do you involve locals whose concerns may seem, from the outside, to be concerns they shouldn't have? Yet, coming from the area, I know that they are deeply held and, I think, are reasonable.

How do you find that balance, when you have set up a system that doesn't require the provincial government to negotiate with local government or get their approval through negotiation, and find a project that works for everyone?

Hon. S. Hagen: I actually listened to the debate on the bill. I think the minister was pretty clear in her comments about working with local governments and working with local regional districts, cities, towns and municipalities.

N. Macdonald: I guess the difference is the powers that the two groups have. To be honest, I think every day in the Legislature we are, in a certain way, consulted. But in a certain way what the government wants to do goes forward every day. That is what happens. We simply don't have the power, because of the voting system, to change that.

If you set up a system where local government is involved and has the ability to set zoning, then it requires the groups to come together and to find something that works for all parties. Hopefully that would be the outcome. I think the danger with it is what the government experiences, where you get frustrated that your agenda can't be met.

Nevertheless, there is a balance that is not there if you have legislation that gives all the decision-making power to the province.

So I'd just come back to that question. How do you ensure the balance in making sure that local concerns, which I feel — and I think the minister would feel — are really valid and are often represented best by local governments, are going to be taken into consideration when you have a tool like section 16 of Bill 11?

Hon. S. Hagen: The balance isn't just between, in the example you're using, the regional district and the province. The balance is really what's best for all of British Columbia, which includes first nations. That's why, in this case, consultation is still underway with first nations. The end result is to bring parties together so that at the end of the day, British Columbians will be satisfied that this is the best decision for them.

N. Macdonald: One of the complications with that is that often, in what is seen as good for British Columbia, the local perspective can be different. The example that I would use for my area is around the hydro development which unquestionably was a key part of B.C.'s economy. But I think if you asked the people in the area at the time, there were tremendous difficulties presented for them personally in the development of that hydro.

Given some ability to negotiate, it would have been handled differently, I would say. I think that we have moved beyond that to a place where we often are far more conscious of the locals' interests.

I guess I would come back to that point. Sometimes, from Victoria, what seems to be in the provincial interest has implications for locals that are very difficult to take. Having local government involved seems to give a balance that section 16 of Bill 11 removes.

I'd just put it to you again. What is the mechanism you see that really allows locals to feel they are not disconnected from decisions that are made that have impact on them?

Hon. S. Hagen: I think the member may be leaping to a conclusion that this bill is going to be invoked in this case, and he shouldn't go there. He shouldn't make that conclusion.

We always ask proponents, for instance, to work with local governments and with local first nations. Our ministry works with local governments and with local first nations.

As I say, when I listened to the debate on the bill, the minister was quite clear in wanting to continue to work with local governments. I don't know what other assurance I can give you.

N. Macdonald: Maybe I'll ask the question once, which I asked the minister 100-and-some times. I think that because it wasn't her file, she was very careful with it — to leave it to others.

Just to put it in context. I wasn't there, but what was reported in the local paper and what was told to me was that the Premier was in Golden on April 21 in 2007 and was asked if local government would be making the decision on Jumbo.

I don't know myself what he meant by that. I don't know if that was an accurate statement. But I wonder if you could give me assurance that the regional district of East Kootenay will be making the decision, or just more clarity in terms of where you see…. And here we're jumping to the specific. Where exactly do you see the process going?

What is government thinking about how they intend to proceed with that project, so that I can give clarity to people back home? They are jumping from place to place in terms of where they think things are going, and I would apologize to them if that's partially my fault, as the Minister of Community Services said it clearly was.

Nevertheless, it would help to have a very clear answer, if the government intends to stick to a commitment that it made back in, I think it was, October of 2004 to have the regional district make the decision. A clear statement of that would be fine. I understand if the minister doesn't want to say that; then we will move on. But if that is the intention of government, it would certainly be good to hear that now.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm not going to comment on what the Premier might have said, because I didn't hear it or read it, and I haven't talked to him about it, so I don't know what he said. But the answer that I can give you is, as I said before, that the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts is currently reviewing the master plan for Jumbo and consulting with first nations. Until that process is complete, no decisions will be made by any level of government regarding the future of this project.

N. Macdonald: Okay. Well, thank you. As I say, just in the interest of time, it's obviously a topic that I had lots of opportunity to canvass, and it's one that I'll have plenty of opportunity in the future to talk about.

I leave you with the concern that I have with section 16, Bill 11, and it's not just this government but provincial governments in general, very often far removed from Victoria. I think any member that represents local areas, areas like that, would find that there is a concern about power being shifted way from where people are and a concern that their interests will not necessarily be looked after by decisions that are made from afar. So with this bill, that's certainly a concern that I had plenty of opportunity to articulate, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak directly to the minister. I know he comes from a fairly rural area, as well, so he would share those concerns. With resort development, I think that that's certainly one part of the concern.

The second part is just the environmental concern about where we are going to put these and making sure that in placing them, we're not compromising the things that make this so attractive, not only for us. I think I, too, could be convinced this is the best place on earth, but I don't want to necessarily put that on signs everywhere. I certainly think it's a special place that we have to make sure that we're looking after. I think what attracts people to it is just the spectacular natural beauty and the people who choose to live here.

A completely different question that my colleagues asked me to ask you about is just the destination status from China and where we are with that. If you could give some information on that, I'd appreciate it.

Hon. S. Hagen: That's a question that I ask all the time to keep track of what's going on, but we don't have ADS status yet. We're hoping to get ADS status. As you know, negotiations are ongoing between the government of Canada and the government of China. It's especially important to British Columbia, because we are the Pacific gateway, and it would be great to have more flights. We already have quite a few flights to and from China, but it would be great to have more. Our growth in visitors from China is a good growth rate, but the numbers are smaller numbers, so the percentages don't mean quite as much as they would if they were coming from Germany.

We're continuing to work on it. We're continuing to work on business travellers. I was in the second-largest travel mart in Shanghai last fall. I met with all the tour guide people over there, who were very important, just like they are in Germany. They're sort of different than tour guide people here. They're pretty influential in getting people to travel to B.C.

We're continuing to work on it. There are some political reasons, I guess, why there hasn't been an agreement reached. We are encouraging the federal government as much as we can to get ADS status.

N. Macdonald: Like I say, to just very quickly touch on this topic…. The other Asian centres have also

talked about the fact that Canada and B.C., as well, are in a very competitive market and that there's a tremendous amount of money being spent by our competitors to attract people.

I think we recognize that there are challenges we face with the group that we predominantly depend upon for visiting us from outside the country — the United States. Those challenges are well known. The price of gasoline is a challenge, the fact that our dollar has strengthened. I know these are all things that you know well and are trying to address, as well as the complications that come with increased security by the Americans at the border.

I guess the question I have for you is: given that we want the Asian tourist trade to improve and given that we have challenges with the, I think the number is, around 75 percent of our visitors coming out of the States — given that there are challenges there…. What sort of promotional ideas does the minister have? How do we make sure that the number of tourists grows? Because that doesn't seem to be the trend.

Here would be a great opportunity to blame the government, but of course it's not your fault at all. It's these other factors. So how do you make sure that trend is reversed and that we get the tourists coming?

Hon. S. Hagen: We have representatives through Tourism B.C. in three major cities in China: Guangzhou, Beijing and Shanghai. We also have a representative in Taiwan. The growth rate from China this last year, right now, is about 15 percent — about 95,000 tourists. We want to grow that, and we are growing it even without ADS status.

We want ADS status. Countries that have ADS status will tell you that it may not be quite as important as people think it is, because it's the leisure traveller and they don't have as much money to spend coming into another country as a business traveller does. Having said that, we want ADS status. So we're working very hard through Tourism B.C.

When you mentioned the word "competitive"…. I'll tell you, I had no idea how competitive the market was until I went to Shanghai and I saw all of those displays from countries that are Third World countries but are advertising tourism in a big way and spending money.

We're spending a lot of money on it as well. As you know, we doubled the amount of money that went into Tourism B.C. We are getting results from China and Taiwan, but we would do better with ADS.

N. Macdonald: Mindful of the time, here again I'm going to jump topics. The ATV and snowmobile legislation…. I see my colleague from East Kootenay is here, and I'm sure that he's spoken to you about it. This is something that we've talked about, something on which I've been with local government to talk with ministers' officials. In rural areas, certainly in Columbia River–Revelstoke — and I think other members from rural areas would speak to you about it too — this is an issue that is raised again and again, around the need for legislation for ATVs and snowmobiles. It's really very, very important.

I know there's been a tremendous amount of work that has been done on this. I know it's something that we were expecting to see sooner, so I would hope that the legislation is coming. I hope that's what the minister is going to tell me. The reason for me speaking here is to prod him to get it into place.

There is tremendous interest. There are issues that local government leaders would present to you about why it should be put into place. I'm hearing from snowmobile organizations, from ATV clubs. If this is done properly…. I reserve my right to see the legislation to see whether it's done properly. There's every reason to expect it to be done properly. I know that there have been wide consultations. You have a lot of information to put it together correctly. The question is: when are we going to see it?

Hon. S. Hagen: I was in government at one time when we used to use the phrase "in the fullness of time." This, as you know, is a very complex and jurisdictional area. I mean, people feel very strongly about what they do on the land base. I have to give my ministry a lot of credit because they've stuck with it. They're consulting with the coalition; they're consulting with all of the various groups. We are working towards a resolution.

I can't give you a time line on that — at least I won't give you a time line on it — but we're working on it. It's one of the more difficult sort of consultation processes that has been undertaken. It actually surprised me, because I don't do much of that sort of thing — the complexity of it. I was impatient when I first came into the ministry and I saw how long we had been working on it. I said, you know, let's get going on this. But the more you get into it, the more complex you see it is.

Are we working on it? Yes. Are we working hard on it? Yes, but I can't give you a time line.

N. Macdonald: The question, as with many of these, has been more to point you in the direction of what we as a caucus see — well, certainly I see — as important. On this one I think I'm speaking more for myself and other rural members than perhaps for the full caucus.

I put it to you that it is an issue that is raised a lot. It is of tremendous importance, and people are certainly looking towards legislation that arrives quickly but is also legislation that is fully thought through and is going to meet the needs that people have certainly presented to government. I put that forward as something that is of importance to me. I think the minister has made it clear that he will work with the urgency that's needed on that.

I will jump around very quickly and just touch on one more topic. Here again, I don't know if we need to switch staff, but it's around Sport B.C. I'll give you an opportunity to….

Hon. S. Hagen: I just want to introduce John Mills, Assistant Deputy Minister of Sport.

N. Macdonald: Certainly I'd like to welcome Mr. Mills and to say, of course, that this is another one of the parts of this job I very much enjoy. Like many other parts of the ministry, it's a pleasure to be able to participate. I'm particularly pleased that Kimberley and Cranbrook are going to be able to host the Winter Games.

Really, the only question that I have is one that you would be familiar with. It is the concern around the change of the ministry, the B.C. Games Society being designated as a Crown agency and the fact that that presents complications for some of their funding needs.

I think there were questions about a need for increased funding. I don't think it was a substantial amount, but there was certainly concern that the minister would be familiar with about the change in how the Games Society was set up and the implications that it had, which included a need for more money.

I would certainly hope that the minister, upon hearing that, had found it possible within the budget to meet that need. I give him the opportunity to explain how he's done that or how in other ways the need has been met.

Hon. S. Hagen: The member will be pleased to know the budget for B.C.'s five multisport games has been increased by $300,000. The main reason for that was to be able to make sure that the games wouldn't always take place in the lower mainland, that they could go to regions of the province.

Hon. S. Hagen: Yeah — to your area. So we have tried to accommodate that by increasing the budget by $300,000.

N. Macdonald: As I say, I'm pleased to see that. I think that those who have attended the games and certainly those who participate in them know that they really are tremendous events. You would hope that any government that's in power would support them. I'm definitely very pleased that they're coming to our area — looking forward to that.

The remainder of the time that I have available to me, I want to talk about something that's again very important to my area. Then we'll move on to PavCo and the convention centre, which I think will take the balance of the time that we have available up until the Minister of State for ActNow, which is towards the end of Thursday.

That's for your information, Minister, and for the information of your various supporting deputy ministers. That's the area that we want to concentrate on for the remainder of today and on until late tomorrow.

As I said with many of these topics, it's in no way to diminish the importance of Sport B.C. or arts and culture or anything else that we've touched on. These are all important things that we want to see done properly.

The last thing that I want to talk about is recreation sites and trails. This is a part of the ministry that came to the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts from Forestry. The advantage that Forestry had was the people on the ground. They had the physical ability to go out and make sure that these sites were well looked after.

I think that in the meetings we've had and in correspondence, you certainly know that I feel the recreational sites and trail system that we had in place was something that was highly valued by rural people in particular. I was disappointed, amongst other cuts that took place, that this program was diminished.

I am pleased…. And I know that the minister, in our local paper, has pointed out the improvements that he has made since those cuts. I would point out, from my perspective, we're nowhere near getting back to where we were and nowhere near making the improvements that are needed.

I would point out that some of the changes have worked in terms of some of the people that were invited to come in and look after campsites of recreational sites of certain sizes. The minimal charges that were levied to people staying there and the improvements that came at the same time worked out well. I would also say that there are other sites.

It seems to me that in a certain-sized site in certain locations, the changes have worked all right — if that makes sense to you. People have taken them over and have improved them and charged a nominal fee, and that seems to work.

But there are huge parts of the system where there simply are not enough people on the ground doing the maintenance that is needed. That's very unfortunate from a tourism perspective, but also from a quality-of-life perspective for people in rural areas.

The other part of it is the recreational trails system, which in the '90s in my area — and that's all that I can really judge in terms of knowing what it was like back then — was, through the Ministry of Forests, very well put together. We had the signs up. We had facilities at the head of the trail that were well looked after. At the destination they were well looked after.

You had maps that were given out by the various…. At that time it was the chamber of commerce that would hand out maps. It was a system that worked very well and has since then fallen into a certain amount of disrepair.

We've talked about this before. I know that your intention is to improve it, and I guess I would be interested in hearing your plans and to let you know how important it is to do that. I'll give the minister an opportunity to start with that.

Hon. S. Hagen: I appreciate the history, but I can only speak to what has happened since 2005 when it was transferred to this ministry. From 2005 on, it's a good-news story.

We want to continue to make it a good-news story, but as you know, in 2005 our government committed a

new $3.8 million-per-year capital investment program, and then in addition to that in '06-07 provided another $1 million to ensure a basic level of maintenance at rec sites. This is in addition to the $5 million that our ministry already invests each year.

So I agree that effective management of rec sites is a good thing. It will help strengthen tourism. It's something we want to continue to work at. I can say that on Vancouver Island it's just as important as other areas like the Kootenays and other areas of the province. It's an area that we'll stay focused on and that we will…. One of my principles is continual improvements, and we're going to attempt to do that.

N. Macdonald: Since I have the opportunity to reinforce the point…. Since I use these a lot, I see that there was a significant investment and has been over time in terms of the infrastructure. What I thought was unfortunate was that that infrastructure was allowed to decay, because I think that it has allowed an investment to be wasted to a certain extent.

I would say that the fact that there are resources being put in there is a positive thing. I want to reinforce with the minister that that needs to continue. With the recreational sites, I think that the minister would know that there are not enough people on the ground to make sure that those are properly maintained. While that will be debatable — and I certainly don't mind if the minister gets up and contradicts me — I nevertheless would say that my impression and the impression of many, many people in the area that I represent would be that you need more investment there.

The second point is with the trail system. You have trails that are becoming overgrown. You have signs that are no longer of use to people. If you know where you're going, you can find the trail. The experience I had last summer was to get to the top of the trail and find that there was damage to the toilet facilities that were there, and there was broken glass — things that would easily be fixed, but if they're not, they give a poor impression for tourists and it's an invitation to further degrade the site, which I think we would agree is not useful.

Certainly that's what I would see. We used to have people on the ground. Forestry is reorganized. These sites are now with this ministry, but you're going to need people on the ground. You're going to need them both for the trail system and for the recreational site system, and more of them with the recreational site system.

Hon. S. Hagen: I appreciate the comments, but I think I need to emphasize that this particular part of our ministry is a focus of our ministry. It's not being run off the side of somebody's desk. Since 2005 we've added six people on the ground, so we are making improvements. We are adding more money, and we'll continue to make sure that we're focused on this particular part of the ministry.

N. Macdonald: With that, what we're going to start to drift into, and I think will take much of the day now, is around PavCo and trying to understand the issues around PavCo.

We'll touch on some questions around B.C. Place, and around that topic, we'll also talk about the changes to the board and trying to understand that. I'm going to be joined by two other members who have questions as well, so we will get to that fairly quickly.

Before we do, I'd like to welcome a new member. Would you like to introduce John?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm pleased to welcome John Harding, who is the COO of PavCo.

Before we get started, if you don't mind, there is something that I'm looking forward to getting. I don't know if the minister has it or not. It's the Auditor General's report. It is the review of the capital project management for the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project. It was due to be released publicly at the end of April, so we're looking for that. If you had that, that be a useful part of this process for us.

N. Macdonald: Has the minister seen an interim report from the auditors who are doing the report for the Auditor General's office?

N. Macdonald: Has the minister been briefed on its contents or had any discussions with anyone on the contents of that report, or is it something the minister has had no contact with at all?

Hon. S. Hagen: I have not been briefed. I have not had a telephone conversation. I've had no conversation. I don't even know if there is an interim report, actually.

N. Macdonald: Has the minister phoned to find out about it, or would he be able to provide any information? Since it is something that was supposed to be presented to us at the end of the month and it's currently late, could you give me some information in terms of when it will be coming out?

Hon. S. Hagen: We are not the client in this case. The client is the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre Expansion Project. It would not be appropriate for me to phone the Auditor General.

N. Macdonald: Would it be possible for you to phone the chair of the new PavCo board and ask that person, who, I assume, is now responsible for the report? I could understand, perhaps, if the minister wouldn't phone directly, but being in contact regularly, I would assume, with the new chair of the PavCo board…. Is that information something that you could

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told by staff that what they've been told by the Auditor General's office is that there will be a report by the end of the month, which is the end of May.

N. Macdonald: So the new date is then the end of May. Is there any indication as to whether there will be an interim report or anything similar to that in the meantime?

Hon. S. Hagen: I apologize for not introducing Russ Anthony, who is the CEO of the expansion project.

I am told by staff again that there is an interim report that will come out. The interim report goes to the board of VCCEP. It is not shown to me. It comes out to make sure that there are accuracies — this is how it was phrased to me — that it's accurate, so no scathing mistakes in it. Then it goes back to the Auditor General, who then issues the final report.

N. Macdonald: The board of VCCEP, if I can use that — that's an acronym I heard first from ministry staff — is now the board of PavCo, and the board of PavCo then will have had discussions about the Auditor General's findings.

In terms of timetable, as I understand how you've described it, the findings are presented to the board of PavCo. They will give a response to it.

N. Macdonald: Of VCCEP? I'm getting confused about the name of the board. Are we now calling the newly formulated board the board of PavCo, or is that going to be described by the minister as the board of VCCEP? Just so I'm clear.

Hon. S. Hagen: It is important to be clear here. There are two boards. One is the board of PavCo, and one is the board of VCCEP, but they are the same people. To combine them, we would need legislation, which hasn't been either introduced or passed. So there are two boards, same people.

N. Macdonald: Actually, that's part of what I wanted to ask over the next few days. I want to understand that process.

Let's stay with the Auditor General, if you don't mind. Just so I understand the process, that will have been…. The minister can let me know the dates. Has it already been presented to the board of VCCEP? So then, I assume, they would have a chance to respond in some way. Does it then come to the minister, and the minister has an opportunity to respond? Then it goes back, and the final report is put forward. Is that a correct characterization, or can you correct me in terms of how it all works?

Hon. S. Hagen: You weren't quite right. This is how it works. I'm sort of new to this process too.

The interim report from the Auditor General goes directly to the board of VCCEP. It doesn't come to me at any time. The board has a chance to respond to the Auditor General. The Auditor General then releases his final report to the board and to me, and I release it publicly.

N. Macdonald: Where are we in that process? Has that first report gone to the VCCEP board, and have they seen it? If they have not, you can indicate that. If they have, then at what date did they first see it?

N. Macdonald: In terms of timing, you would expect that to be presented to the VCCEP board fairly quickly. Or is the turnaround something that could be done quickly? We have, I guess, three and a half weeks left. How much time does it take to respond, have the minister see it and then release it?

Hon. S. Hagen: I appreciate the way the member has been leading me a bit here. I need to say that I don't have any control over this process. This is a process that the Auditor General, who is an independent officer of the Legislature, is in control of. There's a certain amount of guessing.

I know for a fact that the interim report has not been sent to the board. When that will happen, I would be guessing. Because of the length of time that has transpired, I really don't want to guess, except that the Auditor General has apparently told senior staff that they can expect his report by the end of the month, by the end of May.

N. Macdonald: Again, so I understand — because this is a process that I am not necessarily familiar with as well — this is different than some of things the Auditor General does. I understand that VCCEP could have chosen a number of different people to do this work, but they chose the Auditor General.

Does that in any way change what the Auditor General is doing? Does VCCEP have any control over the timing that other parts of the government wouldn't have in any way? Do the people who have purchased this service have any rights that would be different under circumstances that we would normally expect the Auditor General to work under?

Hon. S. Hagen: A couple of things. The Auditor General is the auditor of record for the VCCEP project, and as you know, he's been auditing the project every

three months, which has been posted. The board asked the Auditor General, as their auditor of record, to do further audit work, but they can't instruct him when to bring his report out. They can't instruct him to do anything. I mean, he's the Auditor General.

N. Macdonald: In terms of consistency, there's another member that's going to come, and we're going to work through PavCo together. I don't know if we'll get to it today, but we will explore how the boards were merged. That's a process that I want to understand.

Maybe while we have people here, just a few questions around the convention centre while we wait for my colleague to join us. The completion time — do we have a sense of when the expansion project is going to be completed? Do we have a clear date for when it will be ready?

Hon. S. Hagen: The negotiations that are underway at the present time and are getting close to being completed with PCL, which is the prime contractor, on a stipulated lump sum contract involve both an amount of money and also the completion date. That is what's being negotiated in the contract. When that contract is completed and signed, then that would be made public.

N. Macdonald: Can the minister give me a sense of where you are in terms of those negotiations? I know it would have to be a very general sense, but do you have an idea? Within weeks, within months — a longer period?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm hesitant to give an answer, because I know the colleague seated to your right will leap on it. I think I'll confine my speculation to a short period of time.

N. Macdonald: The "in a range" thing is the sign of an experienced politician, so I commend you on that.

You have a sense, though, of when it's needed for the Olympics. What's the date that it is absolutely needed to be ready for the Olympics?

Hon. S. Hagen: Well, the Olympics, as you know, are in February of 2010. We want to make sure that the building is finished long before then so that we can run some events in it. Also, of course, the work will have to be done to outfit it for 10,000 or 12,000 journalists that are going to be here from around the world, beaming out the news about "The best place on earth" and "Beautiful B.C." and "Super, Natural B.C."

N. Macdonald: I have seen different dates as to when it is absolutely necessary for all the work that is obviously going to need to be done to host the media in that site. But they have tended to be fairly specific.

The minister — or certainly the officials — must have a clear idea of the absolute final time that the facility has to be ready to do a proper job with the media centre. What is that cut-off point? I would recognize that it's certainly, probably, in the neighbourhood of a year, but what's the cut-off point?

Hon. S. Hagen: We certainly do have a clear date in mind, but I'm not going to give you that., As I said, it's under negotiations, which are in a very tentative situation right now. They're very tough negotiations, and they involve the price and the completion date.

N. Macdonald: To follow along that theme, not only with this negotiation but, I assume, with all of the contracts that have been negotiated, how complicated has it been contracting a project where there is a fixed date?

I mean, that must have been hugely complicating for your predecessors and for you and for those in charge of the project. While I'm asking you the question, I'm pretty sure that the people you're negotiating with now know pretty clearly when the line is, and I think the people have known all along. How complicated has that been for the negotiations you've been involved with as well as for the project as a whole? Can you give me a sense of how difficult that has been?

Hon. S. Hagen: I personally have not been involved in the negotiations, but certainly in talking to the people who are doing the negotiating, it's been very complicated. Negotiations are about leverage. As you move down the path on a project, you have less and less leverage. So the negotiations have been tough, and they're still tough.

I think our side is being as tough as they can possibly be, and I look forward to seeing both the number and the completion date.

N. Macdonald: It's obviously not immediately, but at some point are you going to be able to get a clear idea of the additional costs that could be attributed to having that finite completion date? Are you going to be able to identify those? Is there a mechanism that your staff can see for identifying the additional costs that would naturally flow from the leverage the contractors have with a fixed date? They probably have a pretty clear idea about that date.

N. Macdonald: Okay. How much is VANOC going to be paying for the media centre? I know that's probably in the papers and pretty clear, but since you've got staff there, you can probably get that right off your fingertips. How much are they paying and for how long a period?

Hon. S. Hagen: The amount of rent being paid for the media centre is $12 million.

N. Macdonald: Since we're not putting out the firm date that we need to negotiate for, do you have a sense of how long a period? I understand you probably don't want to give the date, but what period of time are we talking about? How many months?

Hon. S. Hagen: If I give you the number of months, it won't be difficult for you to figure it out. I didn't just

fall off the cabbage wagon, you know. Anyway, it is for a period of several months.

N. Macdonald: What additional costs to the convention centre project come with getting it ready for the Olympic media centre? Are these costs going to be picked up by VANOC, or are they costs that are included in the $12 million?

Hon. S. Hagen: The costs for the conversion to the media centre are borne by VANOC.

N. Macdonald: If you'll excuse me, I'm just going to switch to some questions on PavCo with my colleague here. Then in a few minutes I have another colleague, the member for Delta North, who is going to come in and ask some questions related to PavCo as well. I turn it over to my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan: I wonder if the minister could please provide some information with respect to the sale of Bridge Studios.

Hon. S. Hagen: The sale of Bridge Studios completes at the end of May, on May 31. There is presently a confidentiality agreement in place, but the details will be released after the sale closes.

J. Kwan: Could the minister please tell us why PavCo decided to sell Bridge Studios?

Hon. S. Hagen: PavCo felt that the Bridge Studios were no longer core to government business. The movie business, as I'm sure the member knows, has built up very strongly since it was started, probably in the early to mid-'80s — or since it was started in any sort of earnestness. The private sector is well established to carry on with the rental of movie studios, so the decision was made to dispose of Bridge Studios.

J. Kwan: Yes, Bridge Studios is located at Boundary and Broadway on the Burnaby side in the lower mainland. It is my understanding that it was created to help kick-start the film industry under the era of the Socred government. Actually, this minister will know it well, because he was part of that government then.

The area, of course, is surrounded by a range of other private film studios. It certainly was something that the subsequent New Democrat government supported as well. We understand, from the history of Bridge Studios, that it provided a lot of support in the film industry and created a lot of jobs and opportunities. It created a bit of a hub, if you will, for the film industry there. There are at least six other large studios in that area.

Bridge in itself is in many ways a state-of-the-art facility in that it sees about $150 million worth of film productions each year. While it's small, it was revenue-generating to the government, with $2.4 million in profit for PavCo in the previous period — not a bad endeavour, really, for a government enterprise that was revenue-generating.

Given that the government has decided it is no longer core to government services, can the minister explain to me what he means by that — that it is no longer core to government services?

Hon. S. Hagen: PavCo and the government did not feel that it needed to remain in government hands any longer to sustain the success of the film industry.

J. Kwan: PavCo generated money for the government; it wasn't the other way around. It wasn't that the government was supporting Bridge Studios in order to support the film industry. We actually generated revenue on behalf of taxpayers, so it's a benefit to taxpayers.

Why would we, then, let go of a revenue-generating component of PavCo and actually decide to sell it? Why would we do that?

Hon. S. Hagen: It was a business decision. We think the private sector can operate it better. In discussions with the film industry, it was of no consequence to them whether the government owned it or the private sector owned it.

J. Kwan: Has the minister done any analysis, with the sale of Bridge Studios, of the impact on the film industry overall?

J. Kwan: One of the issues that has been brought to my attention is that Bridge was a very good industry studio in that it provided fair market value, in that it actually in some ways set a standard with respect to rental of spaces, and so on, in that film industry in the area. Now with it gone, does the minister not have any concerns whatsoever with respect to the overall film industry and the costs to the film industry in selling PavCo?

My understanding is that there are long-term contracts in place between movie companies and Bridge Studios. Those remain in place, and it's going to be continued to be used as a film studio.

I agree with the member that these studios are important, and they're something that draws the movie industry to B.C. But I've got to tell you that there's a bigger reason they come to B.C.: the quality of people we have in B.C. When I went down to Hollywood and met with the vice-presidents of production and finance of the major movie studios, what they did was brag about the people that we have in B.C. They said they

would take our people anywhere. So the studios are important, but the people are more important.

J. Kwan: I don't doubt for a minute that British Columbia has a tremendous workforce that would attract it, but we also know there are a number of other reasons others are attracted to B.C., particularly with respect to the film industry.

The minister is saying that there has been no analysis done whatsoever, with the sale of Bridge Studios, of the potential impacts on the film industry. The minister thinks that that's not necessary, so no work has been done. The minister doesn't think that the sale of Bridge Studios will impact the film industry at all. But given that he hasn't actually done any analysis on that, how would he know that? On what basis has he formed that opinion?

Hon. S. Hagen: I don't want to make this too complicated. The facility is going to remain a movie studio, so how could there be an impact?

J. Kwan: According to the industry, what they're saying is that Bridge Studios in some ways used to contribute to setting industry standards and in offering competitive rates. That's a component piece which helps support the film industry. That is now gone, and we don't yet know who this has been sold to. The minister can't say until May 31.

I think that there may well be some ramifications. Again, this is actually coming from people in the industry who have raised the concerns, so I put it to the minister in that regard. With respect to the sale, was the bid a public bid — an open bid? Was it listed on B.C. Bid?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, it was posted on B.C. Bid. I have never had a concern raised to me from the movie industry. I have met with the major studios down in Hollywood. I told them that it would be coming up for sale. Nobody raised a concern. If you have a concern, I'd love to know about it.

J. Kwan: Did the minister say that he told the people in Hollywood that the Bridge Studios is going to be sold? Did he consult with the people and the folks in the industry here that it was going to be sold?

Hon. S. Hagen: I certainly did. We had a huge reception down in Hollywood with people from the movie industry in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: Then maybe the minister can tell me who was actually at this huge reception in Hollywood that was from British Columbia.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'd be happy to provide you with the names. I don't have them in my memory, though.

The minister said it was listed on B.C. Bid. For what period was it listed, then?

Hon. S. Hagen: For a month starting in March. I'm told it started about the fourth of March to about the fourth of April.

J. Kwan: So it was listed on B.C. Bid for about a month prior to it going out.

Can the minister advise, with respect to the sale, what sort of protection, if any, would ensure that the studio would remain in place? That is to say, they won't be subject to redevelopment in the area and therefore we would actually lose this very valuable studio to the industry.

Hon. S. Hagen: There were no subject-tos in the advertisement for sale. However, the corporation of Burnaby has zoned the property for film studios, and they are strong encouragers of film-making in Burnaby.

J. Kwan: Then it would be subject to a rezoning process. Is that what the minister is saying? Then it would be up to the Burnaby council to decide.

I'll put on record that I do have some concern with respect to that and the potential loss of that. The minister says that the information will be available on May 31 in terms of who has bought the site and for how much.

Hon. S. Hagen: The information will be made available as soon as we legally can, which is very close to May 31.

J. Kwan: Would the minister be posting that on the website in terms of who successfully purchased the site and for how much?

J. Kwan: I'll be looking forward to receiving the information with respect to that. Would the contract also be posted in terms of the terms of the sale as well?

J. Kwan: In terms of the terms of the sales — and more particularly, I guess, what sold within it — would that information be made available?

Hon. S. Hagen: Whatever information we can make available without injuring the private party, the purchaser, will be made available.

J. Kwan: How would the minister define what would be hurtful to the group or the individual who bought this? How would the minister go about defining that? What does that mean?

J. Kwan: So it will it be vetted through the Privacy Commissioner before it's posted?

Hon. S. Hagen: This is the sale of the land and building that will be posted on the website, with the amount that was received by PavCo for the land and building. Other details will be released only after they have gone through the FOI process.

J. Kwan: So it's the land and the building. What is inside the building in terms of the technologies and so on — you have to go through the FOI process to obtain that information on what was included as part of the sale?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told that PavCo owns the land and buildings. The technology and the equipment is brought in by the studios or the movie companies themselves.

J. Kwan: That's not part of the sale, so all the equipment and everything inside the building would have been removed by the people? No. I'm seeing heads shaking, so I'm just going to let the minister answer.

Hon. S. Hagen: PavCo doesn't own that equipment. As I said, there are contracts in place from movie studies which are making films there. They will continue to bring their equipment in, do the film and then move it out.

J. Kwan: I look forward to receiving the information when it's posted on the website.

N. Macdonald: Maybe we'll get started with B.C. Place. The minister's predecessor last year was asked if the roof was going to last. Of course — and the minister is well aware — despite assurances, there was an incident. There was a collapse.

A similar question. What are the plans for the B.C. Place roof, and what assurances can the minister give that it will not be a problem again in the foreseeable future? Certainly, I know that the minister would be concerned about the obligations the facility has related to the 2010 Olympics.

Hon. S. Hagen: The roof didn't collapse. I know you got that from television, but television was wrong. They were disappointed too. They were really disappointed that it didn't collapse.

As you know, it was a controlled deflation — a little faster than we wanted, due to human error, I guess, but those things happen. It certainly focused a lot of attention on the building that nobody even looked at before.

We're continuing to monitor it. We've stepped up monitoring. Panels or patches will be replaced as they need to be replaced, as they have been in the past.

N. Macdonald: The minister had said "through human error." You will excuse me if I'm not completely familiar with this. Maybe you could explain: is it clear that was the reason for it — that it was human error that led to the controlled deflation?

Hon. S. Hagen: Welcome, Mr. Chair. The preliminary report that came out indicated that it was due to a combination of human error, weakened fabric and weather conditions. Those three things came together.

N. Macdonald: I'm going to give my colleague a chance to catch his breath. I know this is something that he has a passion and interest in, and he was concerned about the quality of the roof well ahead of many.

Just to continue with that, then, there are three factors. You have no doubt addressed the issues around how to make sure that human error is not a factor. The one that jumps out at me is the weakness of the fabric. Obviously, with the period of time that the roof has been in place, that would likely continue to be a concern.

Despite the fact that it was a controlled deflation, as the minister would say, it certainly had the appearance to the general public…. In fact, as a television viewer far removed in the interior, it was certainly characterized as a collapse and not something that you'd want to see repeated across the airwaves of not only Canada but the world.

What sort of work have you done related to the quality of the fabric to make sure that that third of the elements is no longer a factor?

Hon. S. Hagen: The roof is inspected once a year. I did talk to you about the interim report that came in. The final engineer's report is not in, so everybody is anxiously waiting for that. They will continue to monitor the roof. The manufacturer monitors it and engineers monitor it, and we'll continue to do that.

When I talked about a tear, I mean that it was a small tear that caused it. It was a very localized sort of weakness, and it wasn't the whole panel that was weak. They decided to replace the whole panel because it tore as it was being deflated. We are continuing to monitor it on a regular basis.

N. Macdonald: The final report — could you give an indication of when that will be out? Will it be public? How will we be able to access it?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told the report is expected within the next month, and it will be published. We will do whatever the report recommends.

G. Gentner: Can the minister elaborate: who is conducting this report? Which firm?

G. Gentner: Geiger was originally involved in the building and installation of part of the roof. Is that not correct?

G. Gentner: Why is it you wouldn't use a third-party consultant who has no interest or influence in the outcome or the building of the roof?

Hon. S. Hagen: Geiger Engineers tests the fabric, as does the manufacturer of the fabric. They both test it.

G. Gentner: The minister hasn't answered the question why he wouldn't necessarily go for a third party. He's obviously going to go with somebody who is familiar. That's what I have a….

G. Gentner: Birdair. Were they not involved in any inspections and, of course, the refabrication of the roof?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, they were there pretty well immediately after the deflation and inspected the roof, and they'll continue to inspect it.

G. Gentner: How much before the roof collapsed did B.C. Place pay Birdair for maintenance?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told that there was $300,000 spent on the maintenance of the roof the year before, but that didn't all go to Birdair. But we'll be happy to provide the amount of money that went to Birdair.

G. Gentner: The $300,000. That was the budget, or that was the actual money spent on roof repair? Can the minister tell me what budget was forecast for 2006?

Hon. S. Hagen: The $300,000 number that I gave you was the amount spent, which apparently did not vary significantly from the budget.

G. Gentner: My understanding is that $144,000 went to Birdair out of the $300,000. So can the minister confirm where the other money went and how it was spent?

Hon. S. Hagen: We're happy to provide that information, but I'm told that it went to materials and labour.

G. Gentner: How much of the $300,000 spent on maintenance of the roof of B.C. Place went towards in-staff operations?

We're happy to get to you the detailed information if you want. But I'm told that some of it was contractors and some of it was inside staff, so it was materials.

G. Gentner: The minister mentioned there was $300,000 spent, thereabouts. Did we come under budget at $300,000, or did we go over the $300,000?

G. Gentner: Hopefully, the minister will provide shortly what "significantly" means. Are we talking $10? Are we talking $100,000?

My understanding is, from hearing earlier, that the roof is inspected once a year. That usually happens in August, if I have it correct. That was primarily done by Geiger in August. My question to the minister: knowing that the roof was in disrepair and that it was at the end of its life-cycle replacement, as seen in the service plan previously, why was there only one inspection a year?

Hon. S. Hagen: The member is wrong. The report showed that the roof was in good condition. I'm happy to make the reports available to the member.

G. Gentner: I beg to differ. The report and service plan say that it was at its life-cycle end, and it was in such good repair that it tore and we had a so-called controlled deflation.

Regarding reports written about the incident, how many have gone to Workers Compensation? And were there any reports written by a third party not involved in the construction, etc., that also went forward to Workers Compensation?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm going to have to ask the member to repeat the question. My staff didn't understand it. Neither did I.

G. Gentner: I'll be to the point. How many reports written regarding this incident have found their way to WorkSafe B.C.?

Hon. S. Hagen: PavCo has a health and safety committee that meets monthly. They are provided with copies of the engineer's report. They're provided with copies of the report from the people who provided the roof. They are meeting regularly to help make sure that this sort of occurrence doesn't happen again.

G. Gentner: Maybe I misunderstood. Have any reports relative to this incident found their way to WorkSafe B.C?

Hon. S. Hagen: WorkSafe was on the site immediately and have been kept totally in the loop and will certainly receive a copy of the final engineering report.

G. Gentner: The cause of the tear and collapse was because of snow. Or was it a failure of the heating system?

Hon. S. Hagen: The final report is not in yet, but the preliminary report indicates that it was due to a combination of weakened fabric, human error and weather conditions.

G. Gentner: The report I have that the roof structure was supported by air blowing through 16 fans…. How many of the 16 fans were in operation at the time of the tear?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'll tell you what we'll do for the member opposite. We'll give you a copy, if you don't have it already, of the interim report. I'm surprised that you don't have it. We'll make that available to you with the details — everything that transpired from the number of fans that went on and went off…. Everything is recorded in there by the engineer.

G. Gentner: I've had the report for some time. However, the information I am receiving from people who were at the site has a conflicting point of view from what the report says.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'd be the last person to tell you your job. But you know, we are on the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts, and I think we should get back there.

G. Gentner: We had a major disaster here. We had an icon in the province, something that was talked about for years and years. It was going to be a showpiece of the Olympics. We have a ministry that is responsible for the maintenance and operation of it, and it collapsed.

How can the minister say that this is not part of estimates, when we spent a great deal of money to bring that roof back up and more money to maintain it to keep our good face in the eyes of the world? Again, I ask the question of the minister: the order to deflate the roof — did it not come from management?

G. Gentner: The deflated roof was hanging by steel cables six metres above the seating and the floor. My question after this incident is: how safe are these cables, and will they be intact between now and 2015?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'd recommend to the member that he wait for the final report.

What I'm suggesting is…. I don't think you're an engineer. I know I'm not an engineer. I'm suggesting that we wait for the final engineer's report.

G. Gentner: The minister is correct. I'm not an engineer. I'm an avid supporter of the B.C. Lions. I go to the games, and I enjoy those games. Safety comes first, hon. Chair.

I won't venture too far in the following, but I know a colleague of mine will ask the questions later on the specific issue. Now, this has all happened. It's finished. What type of insurance has the B.C. Pavilion Corporation received after the incident for recovery?

G. Gentner: Was it $75,000 for full recovery from the insurance company? Is that what we received — $75,000?

Hon. S. Hagen: No, I said the cost to PavCo was $75,000. The insurance policy paid for the repairs other than $75,000.

G. Gentner: That was the deductible. Okay. What was the total cost? It's all finished and done — the total costs of fabric, repair and maintenance for up until we're running for trade shows and beyond.

Hon. S. Hagen: We won't have that cost for quite a while because there are ongoing repairs that the insurance company is paying for. We won't have a final total till sometime this summer.

Hon. S. Hagen: If the insurance company lets us know, we'll certainly let you know.

G. Gentner: Will the total expenses also account for everything, inclusive, relative to public relations and informing people how the incident occurred? Or we are just talking here about the maintenance and restructure?

Hon. S. Hagen: I guess you'd call them unbudgeted costs. With regards to this occurrence, it was a $75,000 deductible.

G. Gentner: Regarding the insurance, if the insurance company will permit the taxpayers' Crown corporation to expose the total costs, will the minister assure the House that it will ask that the insurance company be required to go public with those costs?

Hon. S. Hagen: I do have a lot of power as a minister, but I can't require an insurance company to do that. Those costs are not coming from the taxpayers; those costs are coming out of the insurance policy.

G. Gentner: We are entering into the era of the Olympics. We're going to welcome the world, and we don't want any of these incidents to happen again. It would be not only expedient, but I think it's the duty of the ministry and the corporation to find out what those costs were and pass that on to the public. This is a building that houses people and looks after the safety of taxpayers who go to games or whatever.

Again, will the minister assure us that he will do due diligence and press hard to have those numbers made public for all British Columbians?

Hon. S. Hagen: I can assure the member opposite that I will press just as hard as I can and will certainly give him any information I possibly can.

Hon. S. Hagen: Apparently, the annual report discloses the information that the insurance broker for PavCo is Jardine insurance.

G. Gentner: Back to roof maintenance and inspection. I'm more interested in what the minister had said — that the roof was inspected more than once a year, if I have that correct. My information says it was inspected only once. That was in August.

Can the minister elaborate what that means, when it was inspected, and particularly how is it maintained? Does that mean it was washed and that the fabric was tested?

Hon. S. Hagen: Prior to the deflation the manufacturer inspected the roof once a year. He spends about two weeks on the roof, and then he makes recommendations to PavCo, who then follow his recommendations. After the deflation the engineer and the manufacturer both inspected the roof.

G. Gentner: Can the minister elaborate on what was recommended by the private contractor?

G. Gentner: Could the minister elaborate which company conducts B.C. Place's risk management?

Hon. S. Hagen: Would the member please define what he means by risk management in this instance?

G. Gentner: Risk management, if I have it correct, is to see exactly how safe the B.C. Place is.

There's got to be some performance as to what has to be repaired. Is this work done primarily in-house, or is it contracted out?

Hon. S. Hagen: The staff at B.C. Place check the roof on virtually a daily basis, and then the manufacturer inspects it for a two-week period once a year.

G. Gentner: What was the cost of the central heat distribution for B.C. Place between April 1, 2006, and March 31, 2007?

G. Gentner: I asked the question because I believe it is a significant number. It was close to a million dollars in '05-06. I'm just wondering, with the deflation, how much more heat loss there has there been and what the anticipation is.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'll go back to the question the member asked just beforehand. He was concerned about the amount of heat — the heat bill. Whatever the extra heat was is paid for by the insurance companies, just so the member knows. We'll still get him the number.

With regard to the rent and services that the B.C. Lions pay, we'll get back to him with that number.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told that the life cycle of the patch is 20 years. We'll have to get back to you on what the warranty is.

G. Gentner: What is the life-cycle expiry date of the rest of the Teflon on B.C. Place?

Hon. S. Hagen: The member is confusing life cycle with life span. Life cycle is an accounting term; life span is what you expect it to last.

G. Gentner: We can talk about life-cycle replacement costs, or we can talk about life span. What is the life expectancy of the current old Teflon that was originally put in there?

Hon. S. Hagen: The roof is expected to last into the future. The last time it was inspected, it was assessed as good. We will assess it every year and make our determination on the assessment.

G. Gentner: "Assessed as good." It means it could collapse — again, because it was assessed as good before. What are the costs of insuring an old roof that has reached the end of its life expectancy versus that of insuring the new roof?

Hon. S. Hagen: Unfortunately, PavCo only got a quote for the existing roof. They didn't get a quote for a new roof, as far as insurance was concerned.

Hon. S. Hagen: PavCo pays one premium, which includes B.C. Place, Bridge and the convention centre.

G. Gentner: During the roof collapse, how many events were postponed? I know that the corporation did a great job getting things back up and running. How many were postponed, and did B.C. Place compensate for any trade shows that were inconvenienced by construction time frames?

Hon. S. Hagen: The answer is none, although I'm told that for the first one — I think it was a garden show or something that was in there — there may have been a small amount of compensation paid because there were still some leaks in the roof.

G. Gentner: My question is: after the B.C. Lions season, how many events occur between the months of December and March within B.C. Place, and what is the generated income during the trade show period?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told by staff that for those months, which are their busiest months, they generate about $3 million in sales.

G. Gentner: Why was there an insignificant contingency in place for a roof replacement when PavCo knew the roof life expectancy had expired?

Hon. S. Hagen: The member is wrong again. The life span of the roof has not expired. He's mixing it up with the accounting term. When you get a report that says the condition of the roof is good, why would you replace the roof? We actually base our decisions on professionals, not on the whims of somebody who walks by the place and has a look at it.

G. Gentner: Football fans do not garner the world on whims. We are real people, by the way, hon. Chair. I'm sure all B.C. Lions football fans would also agree.

In the '05-06 service plan it did state then that there was a problem with the life span of the roof. It stated then — and I can go back into Hansard if I have to — that it was at the end of its life expectancy, and there was a suggestion that perhaps there had to be some moneys set aside for replacement.

My question to the minister is: knowing that it was at the end of its life expectancy, why wasn't the full roof replaced?

Hon. S. Hagen: Again, the member is mixing up the accounting term with the actual. We're not talking about depreciation here; we're actually talking about the life cycle of the roof.

The roof is going to remain in place. It's safe. As patches are required, they will be done. They'll be done on the basis of a professional examining it. They'll be done on the basis of staff examining the roof, which they do almost every day, as I said. Professionals examine it over a two-week period every August. The last engineer's report said that the roof was in good shape.

G. Gentner: I'm sorry — I'm mixing metaphors. I'm just a lowly B.C. Lions fan, and I have to apologize for that. We're into gridiron, and we like our games.

When is the roof that's been inspected…? How long is it safe? Will it last beyond the Olympics?

G. Gentner: That's not good enough. We have an Olympics happening here. Why wouldn't the minister guarantee this House that it is safe for now and until the Olympics?

Hon. S. Hagen: We have already announced that the opening and closing ceremonies are going to be in B.C. Place for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games.

Hon. S. Hagen: This discussion is with getting too deep for me. It's with the roof.

G. Gentner: How many other weak points are there remaining in the old Teflon roof?

N. Macdonald: If you could provide some information for tomorrow. It relates to the Vancouver Convention Centre expansion project and the rationale that was given for the project. One that was identified for a long time was the need to expand to make way for conventions that needed that capacity.

The minister has mentioned…. I'm not sure if it was 29 or 27 conventions that are booked that would not have been booked without this facility. I just wondered if you could provide the length of the conventions that are booked, the dates and the payment schedule. I'm not sure if you could provide the names of the conventions that are booked.

If you could provide that for tomorrow, that would be an opportunity for us to work with that in questions we develop for tomorrow. If you do that that would be great.

Hon. S. Hagen: I will provide whatever information I can. Some of that information is held very tightly by the convention people. Some of the conventions themselves don't want it to be advertised that they are going to a certain place because then they get pressure from other cities as to why they're not going there. But we'll give you whatever information we can.

N. Macdonald: I think actually what we're really looking for is less the names — and I can understand how that may be a concern — but mainly just the length of the conventions, the dates that are being considered so that we can understand whether the figure refers to just in one period, one year. Or is this over a

five-year period — recurring conventions? It's just to get a sense of the significance of the figure and also to get a sense of the payment, as to what sort of value there is to the facility, and also perhaps the scope of the conventions themselves — how many people are anticipated? — so we get some sense, as well, of the larger economic impact.

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

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