Hansard — Thursday, May 10, 2007 a.m.

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Committee of the Whole House		7811
	Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 26)
	A. Dix
	Hon. G. Abbott

Reporting of Bills		7813
	Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 26)

Third Reading of Bills		7813
	Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 26)

Committee of Supply		7813
	Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)
	A. Dix
	Hon. G. Abbott
	C. Wyse
	N. Macdonald
	M. Sather

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		7823
	Estimates: Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts (continued)
	N. Macdonald
	Hon. S. Hagen
	H. Bains
	G. Gentner

Hon. B. Penner: In this House, I call committee stage debate of Bill 26, Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2007. For the information of members, in Committee A we'll be resuming estimates debate for the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 26; S. Hammell in the chair.

A. Dix: We're on a roll. For the information particularly of people in the sector, perhaps the minister can explain the purpose of these amendments with respect to the definition of care facility. We might, in fairness, be allowed to ask him to wander and deal with these amendments as a whole and just talk about the protections that will be available, particularly for those living in small unlicensed residences.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question. This is an important section and certainly an appropriate one to be asking exactly the questions that the member is.

This section really revolves around the issue of consent and of informed consent. It aims at ensuring that patients have the protections that they should have and that they need when they are being admitted or, conversely, discharged from a hospital or a comparable health facility.

The issue of admissions is complicated at times by the capacity or incapacity of the individual who may need the admission to hospital. This section and, really, this bill are about how we build a network or a series of protections to ensure that where informed consent is possible, it is provided, but where for reasons of incapacity informed consent is not possible, how we structure the admissions policy to ensure that the rights of the patient are protected.

A. Dix: Just briefly, so I understand, we'll be debating another bill at another time around advanced care directives, and that's a whole other set of issues. Are any of the changes here at all connected to that? Or are these just changes that were required outside of the discussion around advanced care directives, which will obviously be a subject of lengthy debate in the Legislature?

Hon. G. Abbott: It is primarily coincidental that they are being introduced at the same time. They are certainly designed to be supportive and complementary, but one doesn't necessarily depend on the other.

A. Dix: So it's really unchanged and has no impact on representation agreements?

A. Dix: Just quickly on section 8. This section deals with the use of restraint against a person in care. I think some of this is housekeeping and closing the loopholes, but perhaps the minister could just explain what impact this has both on the rights of patients and on the rights of care providers, and how these issues are dealt with.

Hon. G. Abbott: The use of restraints, I'm advised, is already permitted in statute. The aim of this section is to provide more protections to the patient with respect to the appropriate use of restraints. Regulations will be developed pursuant to this section, and the aim of those provisions will be to ensure that restraints are only used as a last resort when it is manifestly in the interest of the patient to do so.

A. Dix: Sometimes these issues, in terms of the role of families and their concerns about the treatment of patients and so on, become really important. Can the minister talk about what efforts will be made to ensure that patients understand their rights in this regard and any changes — and their families and those that represent them in whatever form, under representation agreements or whatever?

Will there be some effort to inform both care providers and the care provider community but also to provide, perhaps on the ministry's website or in other ministry communications, what impact this will have and what the issues are for patients?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm advised that there will be consultations both with the patient and with advocate communities as well as with the provider community. There will also be education efforts with the provider community on not only this section but the bill as a whole, should it be successful in this Legislature.

A. Dix: With respect to these changes that will come in the following sections, just at the beginning, I presume this will bring about a change in the status of the employees. In other words, the employees in bargaining would not be part of the broader public service now with the changes that come about here. In fact, those employees will transfer to bargaining with the commission. I just wanted to check on that.

I want to check if the ministry has consulted with the employees, with the union and with others about that, and I just want to clarify that that's the case. I'll deal with these questions right now, Minister, if that's okay, as a whole — there's not many on this section of the bill — so that we can then move through the rest of the sections around emergency services.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's analysis is correct. They will be employees of the commission, but of course the commission is a government-funded entity as well.

A. Dix: Presumably, the employees either have been consulted about this or were consulted about this change as the bill was coming in. Obviously, even though they're still going to be employees of the government and everything else, this changes in some ways their relationship with management.

I just want to see if the minister has consulted or will consult. Presumably, it's the expectation that the commission will engage with the employees now that this bill would transfer them under their jurisdiction.

Hon. G. Abbott: There has been a full consultative process with the employees and managers in respect of this matter, and I think the shift here is being strongly embraced.

A. Dix: Since we're shortly going to have a discussion in the House on issues around the Ambulance Service, I think we'll save some of the questions we have around that, and on the implications of changes, for that time.

A. Dix: The minister will have received, as I did, the letter from Mr. Loukidelis. I'll give everyone a moment to change. For people watching, this is a miscellaneous bill, so there are different sections that deal with different issues. These are the issues dealing with PharmaNet.

Would the minister briefly describe his response in general — I know we're going to see an amendment on section 23 — to the concerns raised by the Information and Privacy Commissioner — the need across these sections to ensure that exceptions to privacy be as narrow and limited as possible, and so on? Could the minister maybe summarize his response as a whole to the concerns raised by the commissioner?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm going to be guided by the member's suggestion that I move through quickly on those six areas. As is the case when we get into the area of freedom of information and protection of privacy, there's a realm of complexity that one can enter into rather quickly, actually, whether one intends to or not.

To summarize, the commissioner made six suggestions for the ministry in respect of this bill. The first area revolves around the amendment which will be made to section 23. With that amendment, the commissioner's concern, as we understand it, has been resolved.

On the second area, which revolved around the expression "other information," the commissioner is now satisfied and states that: "We now have no concern with this aspect of the proposed provisions."

The third area he raised was the use of the term "person." That concern has now been resolved, and he states: "In this light, we have no concerns with these sections."

The fourth area is around the information-sharing between PharmaNet and health information data banks. The commissioner says: "We are satisfied that information-sharing…by the above PPODSA and PODSA amendments will be sufficiently circumscribed."

Area 5, electronic auditing. We're committed to working together with the commissioner to ensure that that is done in an appropriate way.

On penalties for privacy abuse, the ministry and the commissioner are, again, committed to working together to ensure long-term resolution of those issues.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper in respect of section 23.

A. Dix: Just briefly on section 27, I want to ask the minister to explain the intent here. It seems that this will extend some of the limits on disclosure of personal health information, amongst other things, for the purpose of market research.

I just want to ask the minister the intent here and to explain to the House what this section hopes to achieve.

Hon. G. Abbott: The purpose of this section is twofold. One is to specifically prohibit what is already done by policy — prohibiting disclosure of health-related information for market research purposes. But it also ensures that the appropriate disclosure of health information remains possible to health researchers and health research institutions, like those related to the Michael Smith Foundation.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Hon. T. Christensen: I now call continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Health.

A. Dix: This morning we're going to ask questions about the B.C. Ambulance Service. The minister has asserted in the media, and the Ambulance Service has asserted, that there are 43 net additional ambulances in the province today over, I believe he said, 2002 — although I might be mistaken in that. Does the minister have information as to where those ambulances are? Many people working in the Ambulance Service find themselves perplexed by that assertion. So I'm curious to know where those ambulances, which the minister claims exist, are actually in operation.

Hon. G. Abbott: In terms of the exact number of physical ambulances that would be located in any given station, we haven't got that level of detail with us today.

I can advise the member that there are 186 ambulance stations in the province. There are within those ambulance stations — this is '06-07 — 466 ambulances and 40 support vehicles. That compares to 441 ambulances and 28 support vehicles in '01-02, 435 ambulances and 25 support vehicles in '02-03 and 457 ambulances and 27 support vehicles in '03-04, and so on.

So it is a gradual trend upward in terms of the number of actual ambulance vehicles. The number of stations also has incrementally grown over time. I think that's the correct response.

A. Dix: Just in terms of information, there's a lot of debate about how many available street paramedics there are in British Columbia.

My information is that in 2002 there were, full-time and part-time, 3,152 total street paramedics. Today there are 3,119 in British Columbia, on a provincial call volume that I think the minister will acknowledge has increased dramatically more than that. I'm guessing what the minister will say is that there's been some shift from part-time to full-time ambulance paramedics.

Nonetheless, does he believe that, especially in communities such as Vancouver and Surrey — we're going to focus on rural-remote communities in a moment — the truly dramatic increases in call volumes in communities such as Surrey…. I think that in the last five years — between 2000-2001 and 2004-2005; I guess

that's four years — there was an increase of some 7,000 calls in total yearly calls, which is almost an increase of 50 percent.

Does he think that, in fact, the number of stations in the lower mainland is adequate? Does he think that the number of paramedics available to work is adequate? I think that significant numbers of the increases have been on the dispatch side.

What plans does the minister have to ensure that there are adequate numbers of paramedics in the coming years?

Hon. G. Abbott: We would just like to get this clarity from the member so that we fully understand his question.

Is he including in the number — which I think he took from 2001 — the number of unpaid volunteer paramedics that existed at that time? Is he including that in the number?

A. Dix: The minister may have misheard. I think the statistics I gave him were between 2002 and 2006.

Hon. G. Abbott: If we understood the member correctly, he is looking at the years 2002-2003, and it does include unpaid volunteer paramedics. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Abbott: The reason why I made a point of asking the member whether he was including unpaid part-time volunteer paramedics in that number is because to get a true indication of the level of commitment and investment in paramedics, one really needs to look at the full-time equivalence of that. The full-time equivalence really tells us about the number of service hours that are being provided to protect the public with the B.C. Ambulance Service.

I'll give the member a comprehensive answer here, as I am occasionally wont to do. For 2006-2007, the number of full-time FTEs — and this is the paramedics — is 1,497.3. That's FTEs — and an additional 964.48 part-time, but paid.

If we look back to 2001-2002, it was 1,254.85 full-time FTEs and 550.55 part-time. Again, I won't go through all of these. What we see in each case for both full-time and part-time is that if we take that period from '01-02 through to '06-07, there are incremental increases in full-time and part-time year over year, every year, through to '06-07 when we have the largest number ever in the history of British Columbia.

Similarly, if you're looking at the BCGEU side of this, also incremental growth year over year, and on excluded management, also growth — consistent growth — year over year in the service as well.

The reason why we see that year-over-year growth in the number of paramedics, both full-time and part-time, is that year over year we see quite remarkable demand increases on the B.C. Ambulance Service. Every year we see close to a 10-percent increase in the demand side for the B.C. Ambulance Service, so we've responded.

To answer the member's question, yes, I'm certainly comfortable that we have improved the number of skilled paramedics to respond to the situation. We know that we've got additional work to do, particularly in some of the rural and remote areas where it has historically been difficult to recruit and retain paramedics.

That continues to be a challenge. In a buoyant economy where people are being attracted away to higher-paid jobs outside their home communities, it is particularly challenging. The excellent folks at the B.C. Ambulance Service are working each and every day on aggressive recruitment measures to try to get out there and identify new paramedics.

A. Dix: The minister will know, of course, that paramedics themselves and their representatives believe that, in fact, the situation in the Ambulance Service is very serious and critical now. They have expressed those views to the minister, and it will be no surprise that they have expressed those views to the minister.

They describe their workloads and their challenges in very stark terms. We're going to review the rural and remote issues in a moment. In urban areas currently, I gather…. The response time standard of nine minutes in the lower mainland is met less than 70 percent of time. The minister's target is 70 percent. This would be, as I understand it, in spite of the fact that the minister said in the House last week that the response times were improving. They haven't been improving in the lower mainland in that time. It's not surprising.

We have to say, first of all, the extraordinary work that ambulance paramedics do. The lower mainland today is a more challenging place — those of us who have to drive in it, have to operate in it — than it was ten years ago in terms of getting around. But response times in the lower mainland are getting worse.

The pressure on the ambulance stations — I have one about a block and a half from my home — is enormous. The area, at times, that they have to cover is extraordinary. The station in Joyce Collingwood covers out to Eagle Ridge at times. You have stations going far and wide trying in a patchwork fashion to cover the pressures that they face.

I want to ask the minister about response times. The data, I have to say, hasn't been consistently kept in a sort of similar manner over time. But it would seem that since the 1990s period, response times in the lower mainland have got worse, and there are extraordinary pressures on paramedics today that they are not able to respond to. So I would like to ask the minister about that.

I would like to ask the minister if he'd commit to answer us in writing as to where the 43 incremental ambulances are — or the 43 vehicles, not ambulances, because I think some of them are support vehicles. I understand that Mr. Lee Doney has been hired to make significant changes to the Ambulance Service. I want to ask the minister whether he has plans presently to offload some of the responsibilities of the Ambulance Service to other services such as B.C. NurseLine — which is a very good service, in fact, but it's no replacement for the emergency services provided by ambulances.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member has raised at least three important issues here, so I think what we should do, if it's okay with the member…. Can he come back to the last Lee Doney question, if he wouldn't mind?

Hon. G. Abbott: We can try to get clarity around the important issue of response times. It is challenging. Clearly, in every case, whether we're talking lower mainland and urban settings or whether we're talking rural or remote settings, the ambulance response times are a very important element in the service that we deliver.

When I made the comments that I did in the House…. I can't remember whether it was early this week or late last week; time kind of drifts by for me. But it was recently when we talked about that in the House. I was referring specifically to the interior and the north of British Columbia, the area outside the lower mainland, when I made reference to the substantial improvements that we have been making in ambulance response times.

I've actually got the detail on all of that. So this is the comparison between basically '03-04 and '05-06, and it reflects the change that was made in the staffing model pursuant to the agreement with the Canadian Union of Public Employees in that collective agreement.

The response time improvements between those two years range from a 34-percent improvement in 100 Mile House; on the lower end, Ashcroft, 15-percent improvement; Invermere, 34-percent improvement; and so on down the line with Trail, an 11-percent improvement. They would be on the lower side.

On average, if you take the aggregated numbers for those three dozen communities in the interior of British Columbia, the aggregated improvement time is 21 percent. Some communities are a little better than 21-percent improvement; some are a little less than 21-percent improvement.

Overall, by having on call staff in the ambulance stations, we've been able to improve those response times in all of those communities. That's something we take great satisfaction in.

Again, we're not ever satisfied with response time. Continuous improvement is the order of the day here, as it is in all parts of the health care delivery system. Certainly, we've seen some very good numbers there that are encouraging and speak well to the commitment of both paramedics and managers in the system across the province.

When we move to the lower mainland, of course, with the rapid growth we've seen with all of the traffic issues we have, particularly at certain hours of the day, it can be challenging to move an ambulance from point A to point B in as quick a time as we would like.

This is an ongoing challenge, and undoubtedly as we see continued urban growth, particularly in the lower mainland area, we'll continue to have this as a challenge. We've seen over the past three years about a 20-percent increase in ambulance call-out in the lower mainland. The volume of calls is growing, and also the environment in which those call-outs are being made is also growing — again, a challenging thing.

Nevertheless — and again I think this speaks well to the work that has been undertaken by the B.C. Ambulance Service and its many managers and employees — the average response time for urgent calls in the lower mainland was eight minutes and 54 seconds in 2005-2006. It was eight minutes and 35 seconds in '04-05, and it was eight minutes and 53 seconds in '03-04.

Despite those challenges around increased volumes and urban growth that tend to get in the way of the quick movement of ambulances, we have been able to maintain those average response times in the lower mainland. I think that speaks well to the dedication of the service. We know it's a challenge, but we also know that people are stepping up to that challenge and continuing to deliver timely service.

There are occasions when obviously things go wrong and we see ambulances confronted by logistical challenges that are very difficult to overcome. Fortunately, the partnership we have with ambulance services in terms of first responders has been of enormous assistance on those occasions. Sometimes the ability of ambulance services to get there quicker than even fire departments, on occasion, is also of advantage to them.

This is a very good partnership we have with first responders, and it has served to continue to see British Columbians receive excellent ambulance service from the B.C. Ambulance Service and the paramedics that work within it.

A. Dix: I think the only problem with that is that the paramedics who actually work in the service would disagree with what the minister says. I won't list off the many cases of 21-minute, 25-minute, 14-minute, 17-minute, 15-minute responses — individual cases they have before them. I'd be happy to share those with the minister and his staff.

Look at a couple of stations — station 246, which is in my riding of Vancouver-Kingsway, for example — just to consider the scope and the territory that a station has to cover. It's not the most challenged station in the province in this regard, but it's in my riding, and I know it well.

I'll mention to the minister that I used to work in New Westminster. In 2005-06 years there were 773 calls from that station in total responses to New Westminster. As I say, I used to work near that ambulance station. I used to drive to New Westminster every day, and none of those calls can be nine minutes. They just can't be, in terms of the distance. I think it shows that there simply has to be….

I asked the minister about this, and what hasn't happened is…. We've had a significant increase in population. We have to assume that the new population will have a similar proportion of traffic accidents and heart attacks and other issues that require assis-

tance, and we haven't seen commensurate with that increase in demand, that increase in calls, an increase in resources. So we sometimes have stations covering vast areas of the lower mainland.

I think it's reasonable, as a region grows, to say that there are also more taxpayers and more resources to pay. These are, by definition, essential services.

I'll just give the minister other examples. Delta: 1,345 calls from Delta to Vancouver — again, not calls that can be done within the time frame that's required. Not all those calls are emergency response calls, but still that shows, I think, the extent and the reach that stations have.

The staff, paramedics say it's not enough. Staff and paramedics say the system is at a breaking point. They don't accept…. I think the minister would have to agree that paramedics, who are on the ground and living with this every day, have some knowledge of this issue too.

I want to ask the minister, in terms of the lower mainland…. Given, really, some of the very lengthy response times we've seen, sometimes the extraordinary territorial area when one station is called out but that other stations have to reach, doesn't the minister agree with me that there simply has to be — commensurate with that increase in population, in tax base, in demand and call volume — an increase in resources?

Instead, what I fear is being contemplated is in fact a reduction of that service or — presumably, I don't know — a privatization of part of that service in order to meet that demand. So I want to ask the minister: what are his plans?

He mentioned the Lee Doney report — the Lee Doney process which Mr. Doney is leading. I want to ask: when was Mr. Doney was hired? Why was he hired? What is his mandate? What does the minister plan to do with Mr. Doney's process?

Hon. G. Abbott: If I understand correctly the thesis that is being advanced by the opposition Health critic, it is that the budget, the resources that are provided by the government to the B.C. Ambulance Service should increase to reflect growth in the tax base of the province and the growth in the population of the province. If I understand the member's submission, that is it in a nutshell. If we take that thesis or submission….

Hon. G. Abbott: And the call volume — fine. We'll add the call volume on to that as well.

If we look at the budget of the B.C. Ambulance Service over the past six years, I think what you'll find, in fact, is that we have achieved precisely what the member has set out. When we took office in 2001, the budget for the B.C. Ambulance Service was $176 million. It has grown year over year, approximately 10-percent lifts year over year since 2001. In fiscal '07-08 the budget for the B.C. Ambulance Service is going to be $283 million. Compared to the $176 million when we took office, that is an increase of 62 percent.

That is a staggering level of growth in a single function within the health care delivery system — 62 percent over six years. I guess the member can argue, as he sometimes does, that there's just no limit to what we should put into anything, but this is a huge commitment on the part of the government to continue to deliver effective ambulance services. A 62-percent increase is huge.

I would challenge anyone to tell me any area of government service delivery, with the possible exception of Pharmacare, that has a comparable increase over six years of 62 percent. It's certainly more than, I think, the growth in the tax base — probably well more than the growth in the population, probably about ten times more than the growth in the population.

It is reflective of the growth in call volumes, but it certainly isn't any less than the growth in call volumes. I think, in fact, I would have to say that the member's thesis has been fulfilled by the government in every imaginable way.

Turning to Mr. Lee Doney. Mr. Doney is the new Emergency Health Services Commission executive officer.

My apologies, hon. Chair. I should say that Mr. Fred Platteel is with me on my left today. He is the chief executive officer of the B.C. Ambulance Service and is joined on my right by Gord Macatee who is my deputy minister.

Lee is with us as the new executive officer for the Emergency Health Services Commission. The Emergency Health Services Commission has the legislated mandate to ensure the provision of pre-hospital emergency health care services throughout the province.

Besides the B.C. Ambulance Service, it was announced in March 2006 — and actually we've just done some legislation pursuant to this — that the Emergency Health Services Commission would also assume responsibility for B.C. NurseLine, B.C. Bedline and the B.C. HealthGuide programs.

The commission is expanding to include all of those programs. This will combine all pre-hospital emergency health services under one umbrella and will allow for better emergency care for British Columbians. I think that on some occasions it will ensure that we get the best, most appropriate response to the level of concern that is raised as people call one of those lines to get the best advice they can from the health professionals who are at our end of the line.

The number of CUPE members has increased by 2 percent in a context of a call volume that everyone admits has gone up dramatically. Admittedly, the number of excluded managers has increased very dramatically. I don't know how one would explain that.

Overall, the number of available street paramedics has gone down in the last four years. There has been some increase in full-time paramedics, but nothing like

the rate of growth of the call volume. And there has been a reduction in the number of part-time paramedics.

People can judge because, after all, it's the numbers on the ground who actually serve people. It's those numbers that matter, and clearly those numbers are not going up commensurate with the increase in demand. What matters to people most when they need help is whether a paramedic will be there to help them.

I want to ask the minister in that regard about the following stations. Station 402, Castlegar: increase in call volume over ten years, 129 percent; downgraded from full-time to part-time positions. Grand Forks: increase in call volume over ten years, 67 percent; downgraded from full-time to part-time positions. Invermere: increase in call volume, 122 percent; downgraded from full-time to part-time positions.

Then equivalent numbers for Fernie, Sooke, Port McNeill, Qualicum Beach, Chemainus, Armstrong, Ashcroft, Chase, Merritt, Oliver, Osoyoos, Princeton, Revelstoke and Winfield — all of those with increases in volume of between 100 and 268 percent, and all of them downsized from full-time to part-time paramedics.

I wonder if the minister can explain…. Just for the minister's edification, 94,087 people live in those communities. Why, with an increase in call volume, would you go from full-time to part-time employees?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, the member is misconstruing and misrepresenting the number of paramedics in this province. What he's saying is simply not true. If you take a paramedic who worked for 20 hours in the year and you compare it to a paramedic who worked full-time or worked 800 hours during the year and say that the paramedic that worked 20 hours a year was equivalent to the paramedic who worked 800 hours a year, then that's just, frankly, misleading.

What I did earlier on today was to provide for the House the numbers, on an FTE basis, of full-time and part-time paramedics in this province. The numbers I laid out clearly showed the increase.

Again, you can compare it any way you wish, but regardless of how you do it, we are seeing improvement — and dramatic improvement — in the number of service hours that are being provided by both full-time and part-time paramedics in this province. So to take a figure like…. Well, there used to be more people working fewer hours. That is unrepresentative of the level of service that the province receives, and I hope the member can agree with me on that point. I guess if he disagrees, we can continue this debate.

But if we are seeing a dramatic improvement in terms of FTEs, which is the real measure of how many service hours there are for communities across this province…. That's the real measure, not whether we had ten people working ten hours for a total of 100 hours or we had five working 500 hours for a total of 2,500 hours. Clearly, we are doing more.

I can bury the member in data here if we want to play this game. I will. I'll bury the member in data to demonstrate that, in fact, we are having way more service hours today by B.C. Ambulance Service than was the case in 2001. There has been dramatic improvement.

The member says: "Well, there have been increases in call volumes in a whole bunch of these communities, and how come we don't have certain positions there?" Well, the changes have been made pursuant to the memorandum of agreement that exists between CUPE 873 and the B.C. Ambulance Service. It has resulted in better service.

I know some want to grind relentlessly to continue collective bargaining discussions in processes like estimates and question period, but the fact of the matter is that we have had a 62-percent increase in the budget of B.C. Ambulance Service over six years. That's a huge increase. We have improved service in communities across the province.

The member mentioned a number of communities. I don't know whether we have a list of them with us here.

This is all improvement side: 100 Mile House, 34 percent; Ashcroft, 15 percent; Barriere, 16 percent; Castlegar, 21 percent; Chase, the member mentioned, 21 percent; Clearwater, 21 percent; Creston, 32 percent; Fernie, I think the member mentioned, 28 percent; Golden, 18 percent; Grand Forks, 13 percent; Invermere, the member mentioned, 34 percent; Keremeos, 22 percent; Kimberley, 31 percent; Lillooet, 31 percent; Merritt, 18 percent; Oliver, 24 percent; Osoyoos, 23 percent; Peachland, 12 percent; Princeton, 13 percent; Revelstoke, 27 percent; Sicamous, my home town, 21 percent; Summerland, 18 percent; Trail, 11 percent — for an aggregated improvement across those municipalities and areas of 21 percent.

I don't know where the…. Again, the members are trying to construct a straw horse or a straw man here and then beat it up.

You start with the budget: a 62 percent increase. You look at the number of ambulances: increasing. You look at the number of paramedics: increasing. You look at service times: increasing. You look at service improvement times: improving. All of those things suggest, actually, a very good service. Has it got challenges? Of course it does. We always look forward to the constructive advice of members on how to improve them.

R. Hawes: In the gallery today there are 38 students from Meadowridge Secondary School, which is an independent school in my riding in Maple Ridge. This is just an absolutely first-class school that always scores very, very high in every regard. They're with their teacher James Clelland. He is assisted by Jim Davies, another teacher from Meadowridge. Could the House

C. Wyse: To the minister: So that he has an idea where I'm going to be starting from, initially I will start in my riding with a couple of situations that exist that he is familiar with and move from my riding out beyond it into rural-remote designated communities.

It may be a good reminder — when we talk about the transportation system, which is the ambulance taking people that require care to the hospital, the care centres — that there has also been a closure of hospitals through the same corresponding period of time. That has increased some stress upon the transporting system, the ambulance system.

Eventually I will come back to that component of it, but for starters, the minister is well aware of a situation that occurred in my riding at Alexis Creek on April 21. It was a very unfortunate incident that did transpire. Alexis Creek has a remote station which, once more, was out of service.

As has been drawn to the minister's attention on a number of occasions, Alexis Creek is out of service very regularly. For example, in the month of April of this year it was out of service for 15 out of 30 days, and for May of this year it's projected to be out of service for 23 out of the 31 days.

This conversation around this large geographical area has been ongoing with the minister from quite a period of time. My question to the minister is: when will the Chilcotin be provided with the ambulance services as established by the B.C. Ambulance Service itself?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member raised a number of important issues in his initial comments, and I'll try to deal with those. I look forward to the member raising issues around hospital closures. I certainly know how difficult hospital closures can be.

Back in the 1990s I had two hospitals closed in my constituency. My community hospital in Enderby was announced for closure by the former Minister of Health for the NDP in 1999, and in 1997 a former NDP Health Minister announced the closure of Armstrong hospital, also in my constituency, so I have some experience with that.

I know it's challenging for communities. It's challenging for regions when hospitals are closed. But you know, whether it's an NDP government or a B.C. Liberal government, sometimes there is a case made around how to get the best value from the many taxpayer dollars that we devote to this area of public enterprise, so we try to do that.

In terms of the important issue, and I think this will be one of those occasions when there's maybe some measure of agreement around this point…. The stations at Alexis Creek and Anahim Lake and Clinton have been particularly problematic stations for us historically. This was not an issue that began in 2003 or 2004. If we went back a decade, it was a challenge then as well.

They are small communities that have had some chronic challenges in terms of recruitment and retention of paramedics in those stations. And it continues to be a problem. I don't for a moment quarrel with the member around that point. We want to improve the in-service hours at all three of those stations because we want to have full coverage. This is something we'd agree with the member on.

Having said yes, we agree that how we get there can be a challenge as well. We've got a program in place, which we hope is going to be of assistance in reaching the goal that I think we commonly share with the member. I'll talk about that in a moment.

Just to give you a sense of the magnitude of the challenge, if we look at those stations in 2006 and the out-of-service hours, the station was in service 77 percent of the time, meaning that about 23 percent of the time it was out of service as a consequence of not having staffing available to keep it in service. That's Alexis Creek.

Anahim Lake is somewhat better; 84 percent of time was in service in 2006 — still 16 percent of time out of service. In Clinton we have actually seen some improvement there in terms of in-service time — 93 percent of the time was in service in Clinton. So that's good. We're still concerned, though — and I know the member is — with the 7 percent out-of-service time that we have in that location.

On the issue of paramedic retention and recruitment, there's been much work done in the last couple of years, because we do want to improve in this area. We have, in particular, launched targeted recruitment initiatives in the Queen Charlotte Islands, which apparently are meeting with some pretty good success. There have been some chronic issues in Queen Charlotte Islands with respect to retention and recruitment. The initiative seems to be working and working well there.

In Nakusp, which I know the member for Nelson-Creston is very concerned about, we seem to be making some headway on our initiative in Nakusp, which has had some chronic issues on the paramedic side.

Robson Valley, Valemount and McBride, which the Education Minister is much concerned with, and on the north Island…. We've undertaken some initiatives there, and we're learning from those initiatives. Hopefully, we will see part of the solution to the challenge we face through those initiatives.

In addition, B.C. Ambulance Service is exploring opportunities to partner with health authorities to integrate the skills of paramedics in local health care facilities. The member will remember that when we had an opportunity to get together, on a few occasions actually, at the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention last year, some of the communities came to me and came to the province with some innovative ideas about how we might integrate paramedics into nursing outposts or small clinical stations in some of the smaller communities.

We certainly welcomed those suggestions. We're working with those communities to see if there's some way that we can kind of build some synergy between the health care delivery that is there in those small

communities and the paramedics. It's a challenge on both sides of the equation, and perhaps there are some synergies we can develop to improve on that.

As well, in 2006-2007, B.C. Ambulance Service invested $78,000 in EMR courses for ambulance staff who were previously only licensed to the occupational first-aid level. So we're investing to improve the skills of our paramedics.

Actually, I have a fair bit of detail here around the partnership that B.C. Ambulance is building with the Kootenay area — the Nakusp–Arrow Lakes area. I'm glad to go through that with the member, but in the interests of time I won't take it there. I do have some very useful information in respect of the initiative in Nakusp, in Queen Charlottes and in the Robson Valley.

C. Wyse: I have a colleague who has a question or two that he would like to ask you. He has to be in another meeting. If it's agreeable with the minister, I will come back and pick up my line of questioning once my colleague here — that one over there — asks his questions.

N. Macdonald: First, I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity. I need to get back to estimates in the other house. The question that I have…. Like many members from the interior, and in my riding as well, there are a whole host of issues that come up around paramedics. I think we all agree that this is a service that we need to get right.

The specific issue that I want to bring to the attention of the minister — one that I'm sure he's heard about, but one that needs to be addressed quickly — is around the Revelstoke situation. It is one of the most challenging highways. It is a community that is, of course, relatively isolated and needs the service for itself and also for the people who travel on our national highway over what, I think the minister would agree, is one of the most dangerous sections of the highway. It relates to the ambulance station.

The government made a number of changes. The minister will allude to the $10-an-hour…. He'll allude to some of those changes. Amongst them was the requirement to stay at the station.

What I would put to the minister is: with the decision by the government to do that, there would be a requirement to make sure that paramedics had the facilities that would allow them to stay at the station. In Revelstoke's case, it very quickly became impossible for them to stay at the station. For the past year they've had a series of situations that, I think the minister would agree, are unacceptable.

The situation is this. They needed to move out of the facility that they had been in for a long time. That relates to the fact that they had to stay at the station. They then went to a motel. The ambulance was kept outside. I know the minister is from Salmon Arm, but the difference in snow from Salmon Arm to Revelstoke is substantial. There were a whole host of complicating issues that were caused by the fact that they stayed in the motel and the ambulances were outside.

From there they went to another facility, which I'm sure staff that surround the minister would tell him was completely unacceptable. I recognize that Ambulance Service was scrambling to find appropriate facilities, but they were even being told not to sweep because it would stir up dust that was unhealthy for them.

I had an opportunity to visit. One whole side of that facility was filled with propane tanks. They were told they couldn't stay there because of a fire danger — so a whole host of problems.

I would make two points with the minister. First, there is an obligation, if you're going to change the conditions of work, to make sure that it is thought through and that you have a situation that works for the paramedics. I need to point out to the minister that these paramedics have, of course, adjusted very well, and they have continued to do a tremendous job. But what is clearly needed is a purpose-built ambulance station.

The idea that they would stay another winter with their ambulance outside and them staying in the motel simply will not work. They have had at least two instances where the ambulances were vandalized.

I bring this to the minister's attention. It is a serious issue. I know that he would recognize this. It needs to be more than promises. We need clear dates on when the ambulance station is going to be built, where it will be built, and we need to be working towards the fall to make sure that there's not another winter like the one we've just had for the Revelstoke paramedics.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm very appreciative of the member raising this issue. I think it's entirely appropriate and useful for him to be raising this on behalf of his constituents in Revelstoke. I should note that I'm actually from Sicamous, although if I were from Salmon Arm, I would be proud to be from Salmon Arm. I'm even slightly closer to Revelstoke than the member suggested.

The Revelstoke station has been an issue for BCAS, and we are working to resolve those issues. I don't disagree with the member at all in terms of his analysis about the challenges around the physical structure of the station that exists there. There had been some efforts to try to find an accommodation with the fire department. Apparently, that was unsuccessful for a variety of reasons.

B.C. Ambulance Service has been, because of the importance of this station, attempting to finalize a property acquisition that would allow the new-built construction of an appropriate facility sized for the needs of Revelstoke. In terms of that need Revelstoke, for its size, is a relatively busy station, as the member noted. The emergency call volume last year was 677 calls, so close to two calls a day from 911.

Notwithstanding the problems we have in terms of the physical structure and the location of the on call paramedics in a motel, nevertheless Revelstoke has seen a 27-percent increase over the last couple of years in response times — notwithstanding those difficulties.

We don't discount those difficulties. In fact, for all of the reasons that the member articulated, B.C. Ambulance Service will be making an investment in an appropriate property in Revelstoke. We will be endeavouring to move as quickly as we can towards construction after finalization of that property acquisition. We hope to have a new, functioning ambulance station for the city of Revelstoke and the area within the next year or two.

C. Wyse: My colleague asked me to convey to the minister his appreciation for his response.

Minister, I'm going to now go back to you with the discussions that we were having with regards to Alexis Creek and the statistics that you presented for out in the Chilcotin. I'm assuming that the statistics you gave deal with actual closures. That also does not include when those stations had first-responder status, which leaves the station open but with a situation in which there are not enough personnel in order to transfer the people in.

We have had discussions on how that set of circumstances puts additional pressure upon other services out there — namely, the police — at both Anahim Lake and Alexis Creek, where the detachment, on more than one occasion, has provided the driver so that the ambulance could then make the transportation to the nearest necessary hospital, which is often Williams Lake.

The statistics that you mention — and you talked about improvements — still have other aspects that come into play with service levels and the effects that they have upon other protection services in that area.

Remember, on the incident of the 21st that we used to introduce this situation for our discussion, that that was a policing situation where it initiated a shooting incident. The station was shut down. The reports I have from the RCMP deal with the transfer of a person from where the incident occurred to Alexis Creek itself. Then the pickup takes place by the Ambulance Service from Alexis Creek back into Williams Lake. Dealing with that component….

There also is another aspect that comes into play. On the 21st, both Anahim Lake and Alexis Creek were out of service, so ground ambulance was not available from Williams Lake to Bella Coola — the whole length of distance of some 400-plus kilometres.

The minister of course will correct me here, if necessary. Ambulance coverage by air decreases and disappears during evening hours, so the statistics that have been provided by the minister, dealing exclusively with closure of the actual stations from a full-time aspect of it, have some other components that do come into play.

The third component that the minister has had drawn to his attention is that when the backup system becomes air ambulance, first nations communities have advised the minister, as well as myself as their MLA, that their elders — on at least one occasion, if not others — have been transported from an already-rural setting to even more distant areas. So the transportation of those elders back to their communities has been further complicated. In moving them further away, they also moved them out of areas where the elders' language was also spoken, further complicating the treatment.

The complexity of dealing with the Chilcotin and all of its problems is larger than simply dealing exclusively with the actual closure of the system as his statistics mentioned.

I have a request of the minister. I am aware that on April 21 both Anahim Lake and Alexis Creek were shut down. The question that I would have is: how often has this situation occurred, in which both stations have been out of service, in years '04, '05, '06? If that information is not readily available, I would be quite happy to receive it sometime in the near future.

Hon. G. Abbott: We have here the information, which I noted earlier, about how much time out of service, respectively, there was in Alexis Creek and Anahim Lake. We don't have with us the kind of data that would allow us to look at it and say on what occasions both stations were out. I'll ask staff, if in fact that data can be prepared, to assemble it for the member. But we certainly don't have that here.

In terms of the unfortunate situation that occurred in Alexis Creek on April 14, 2007…. This was a difficult situation involving a gun battle on reserve at the Anahim reserve of Alexis Creek. A young woman was shot during the exchange of fire.

We did have to bring a crew in from Williams Lake to deal with that. It would have been, certainly, optimal to be able to have a crew readily available in Alexis Creek to deal with that, but it was not. Of course we would like that, but we….

First of all, I'm happy. I understand the young woman has survived and survived well. I certainly want to extend our appreciation to the physician who was, happily, on scene or near the scene and was able to assist in this difficult situation.

That's the whole reason why we want to continue our aggressive recruitment and retention for those difficult stations. We're undertaking the initiatives for recruitment to build a better capacity and to try to ensure that when we need emergency health services, they are there for those communities.

That having been said, it is important for all members of that community not just to criticize when a challenge occurs but also, I hope, to step up to the plate and offer suggestions or help us in those recruitment drives and to try to ensure that — whether it's the aboriginal community or the non-aboriginal community — we have representatives from both aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities among our attendants.

I think in the case of the Queen Charlotte Islands, we're making some progress in respect of, for the first time, being able to recruit and train young aboriginal people into the B.C. Ambulance Service. From our perspective, that's a great thing. I hope we can see some of

that success continue in Anahim Lake and Alexis Creek. Everybody needs to step up to the plate on this.

I also want to note that the member mentioned the RCMP and the role that they sometimes play. I salute the RCMP for the work they do to support the B.C. Ambulance Service, and obviously the B.C. Ambulance Service supports the RCMP at times in return. To our knowledge, or to Fred's knowledge, there have only been two incidents over the past six years which involve an RCMP officer driving an ambulance in support.

Nevertheless, we don't see that as something we should be critical of. In very small communities there are occasions when the emergency services will support one another in difficult and unforeseen circumstances. That's the whole theory behind first responders. We build those kinds of partnerships.

We want to extend that partnership to first nations. Whether in a formal legal sense we have an obligation to provide ambulances to first nations where fiduciary responsibilities for the first nations rests with the federal government…. We respond. The B.C. Ambulance Service is comprised of human beings who want to help other human beings. That's what we do, and we try to do it in the most effective way possible. We try every day to improve the service to all of the people we serve in rural and remote areas.

C. Wyse: For approximately two years, as I've tried to pursue this issue in various different forms, in various different means…. Until today, I've received denials. I've received provincial statistics. I've received reports. Finally, today, I've received an admission that a problem does exist.

I would also like to be on record here that the conversation that I've had with the RCMP…. There have been more…. There were four incidents in Alexis Creek in the last year, and there was one, I believe, from Anahim Lake either last year or the year before. Those incidents were reported to the minister. I also reported that the RCMP are required to leave their vehicles behind because, of course, their service is then being removed.

Having put that on the record, Chair, I am going to move on now into 100 Mile and into the Cariboo area. On April 27 there was an incident that occurred when the ambulance service was overextended. The situation briefly is that there was a fire in 108 Mile. There should have been an ambulance on standby in case the ambulance was required. So 100 Mile was the nearest ambulance station. Its ambulances were fully engaged. An ambulance was required and called for.

Williams Lake, which would have been the next nearest station, likewise had all of its ambulances engaged. So Clinton, the remote classification, was then designated to send out the ambulance.

There was a tragic outcome that occurred in this particular incident. Setting aside that outcome, the situation is that the ambulance service availability across the Cariboo and the Chilcotin was overextended again. The system is stretched to its limit. Therefore, when we deal with a spike, if you like, the system is not able to respond.

There becomes a cascading effect that reverberates right throughout the entire area — the Cariboo and the Chilcotin. I have described other situations in this House that have reverberated from Williams Lake right out through the Chilcotin.

When we take the significance of the ambulance being the transportation system into the hospital and we see the problem that exists, which the minister is acknowledging exists in this part of the area…. When we get the patient into our hospitals in our area, the next aspect becomes their transportation out of the area in the case of trauma.

We have confirmed cases that trauma patients, upon arriving at 100 Mile, have been refused access — Kamloops, Kelowna, Vancouver — leading to delay in their treatment.

My question becomes…. With the average transfer time from the Cariboo-Chilcotin stations to a hospital for the years '04, '05 and '06…. Once more, if that information is not available, being conveyed to me at another time would be quite acceptable.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm sure the member, in the interests of time, is attempting to integrate a number of issues into one single question. We're going to get some issues confused here if we do that.

Let me begin by concluding on the challenges of Alexis Creek and Anahim Lake. The member suggests that it's some kind of revelation today that I acknowledged that those stations are challenged. I have constantly acknowledged that those stations are challenged for the full period that I've been Minister of Health — no debate about it.

It is a challenge, and it will continue to be a challenge. It was a challenge five years ago. It was a challenge ten years ago, and it was a challenge 20 years ago.

Part of the challenge is that when you have a station that has a call, on average, once every two to three days, it is difficult to sustain the long-term interest of paramedics in those areas. It's a challenge, but it's a challenge that we're mindful of and that we're working on.

The member said something about the RCMP 40 times involved in ambulance work. I'm not sure what he means by that. That is news to the B.C. Ambulance leadership that we have here. Again, to our knowledge, in six years there have been two occasions when RCMP officers specifically drove ambulances to assist. It is not a common thing. I presume the member is taking some very broad definition of RCMP involvement in a BCAS call to make that kind of assertion, but it certainly is not resonating with the senior leadership at the B.C. Ambulance Service.

We have a great relationship with the RCMP. We work together on a constant basis, but I think the member's suggestion that somehow the RCMP have had to undertake the work of the B.C. Ambulance Service on a consistent basis is entirely incorrect. So I want that on the record before we leave it as well.

The member references the very unfortunate situation of April 27 at 108 Mile House in, I think, his con-

stituency. I'm not certain about that. Yes, in Cariboo South. In that case, first of all, I want to say that…. I know now that I think the member may have shifted his ground on this somewhat. I saw a newspaper article in which the member is now saying that everyone worked appropriately and effectively in that situation. That is at some odds with the kind of line that this member and the member for Cariboo North were taking in question period in recent days.

In question period during those days, I said that this was a difficult situation. It was a difficult situation because the two ambulance units in 100 Mile House were both occupied with calls at the time the fire call came in at 108 Mile House. The situation that evolved was such that there was no immediate injury or illness involved around the fire. The cardiac event, which occurred, sadly, during the fire, was something that evolved during that incident.

The two ambulances in 100 Mile House were engaged in other calls at that point in time. As a result, the patient, entirely appropriately, was moved by a fire vehicle into the hospital at 100 Mile House and, sadly, succumbed to the very serious nature of cardiac arrest. But if I understand the member's comments in the newspaper article correctly, he's now satisfied that everyone did everything that they possibly could to deal with what was a tragic set of circumstances — unquestionably, a tragic set of circumstances.

But this is unusual that we would have this event. On average, 100 Mile House receives about six calls a day. It would be an unusual circumstance to have the ambulances occupied the way they were on that day, and I think the member himself now acknowledges in the newspaper article that, given the nature of the medical situation, the best was done that could be done. It's an unfortunate situation. We'll certainly learn from the situation. I hope the member perhaps learns something from that situation and perhaps learns something about forming and articulating conclusions before having all of the benefit of the facts at hand. I know sometimes these things can be painful in respect of that, but I hope that there's been some learning on that part as well.

In terms of the other issue, the member references the situation, again, with a cardiac patient requiring air ambulance transport to the lower mainland for attention. I'll go through it in a subsequent answer here — I presume we're going to continue on this track for a while around air ambulance — but I'll give a short answer to the question right now.

Even though we have a significant number of air ambulances both immediately available or available on an on call contractual basis, there are times when we will have multiple demands on the air ambulance service. On those occasions, sometimes the medical advisers at the B.C. Ambulance Service have to make difficult decisions about where to place the priorities in terms of those calls. I'm sure it's a remarkably difficult judgment to make, and the situations are unusual, but they can occur.

We have a population of 4.2 million people, and we don't know with precision what times and where and why they will require B.C. air ambulance transport. Sometimes multiple demands on the service will occur at a single time, and other times we will have hours where there will be no call on the service. This is a challenge, but I think we're moving ahead on that.

That's a short answer to the question, and I know members want to move to another area briefly here. Perhaps we'll be returning to ambulance in the afternoon.

M. Sather: The member for Cariboo South will be glad to continue with that discussion after the break. The time is short, as the minister mentioned, hon. Chair, so I want to put my questions out in total. I'll lump them together, and then the minister may want to respond now, or he may want to respond after the break.

Carrying on, though, from yesterday, the questions are around the emergency room extension at Ridge Meadows Hospital, which had gone from being announced in 2004 at $8 million, subsequently to $14 million in March of 2006, and then three months later to $20.6 million. I wanted to ask the minister, now that he's had a chance to review the file, what discussions have been had with the health authority over this escalating cost, and what assurances can he give that this is going to be the final cost and that we're not going to see anything further?

I wanted to make some comments and a question, if you will, on the issue of construction costs. That inevitably comes up over a period of years. We know that construction costs have risen. The health authority cited a 48-percent hike in construction costs over the two-year period, but Mr. Keith Sashaw of the Vancouver Regional Construction Association said: "We've been looking at increased construction costs of 12 percent to 13 percent per year." That would be 24 percent to 26 percent over two years, as opposed to the 48 percent that the health authority is citing. That was information given by the director at Ridge Meadows Hospital. I wanted the minister to comment on the differences in those figures.

Also, the project was supposed to start in the spring of 2005 and was delayed for one year. Could the minister, in his answers, address the question of why it was delayed for one year?

Finally, the issue of cost overruns. Despite going up two and a half times, the health authority is still saying that the project is on budget and on time. This comes up a number of times with different projects that the government undertakes. They say: "This is the project. This is going to be the cost." Then later on they let out a tender, and then suddenly the escalating costs are now on time and on budget.

I have to say that I think that accounting mechanism and the communications to the public are disingenuous. I would like the minister to comment, too, in his answer whether he agrees that this project is still on time and on budget despite having gone up two and a half times in cost.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member asks a number of questions in respect of this particular project. I know they routinely criticize the P3 initiatives of the government, yet at the same time they seem to be critical of any other approach to construction, particularly when we see construction costs escalate over time. They are particularly critical of that but seem to underestimate the value of P3s in terms of containing the risk to the public purse around those.

I guess this is either an instance where the opposition would like to have it both ways, as they frequently do, or perhaps it's an instance of where they simply don't want to do anything and therefore not incur any construction cost in doing so.

To be clear, I have a report here from the BTY Group around construction cost escalation over time. These are leaders in this area. I hope this is satisfactory to the member. This is a direct quote from the document. "Following relative stability in the 1990s, construction costs in the lower mainland since 2000 have experienced a cumulative compounded increase of 65 percent across all projects. This broad escalation continues to force contractors, clients and consultants to adjust expectations in budgets." Then there's a whole bunch of information in respect of how those costs have escalated.

In reference to the Ridge Meadows Hospital emergency and ambulatory care project, I should note there are three basic factors in terms of the change in the dollar amount associated with this project. First of all — this is very important, and I hope the member will make a note of it — there has been an increase in project scope. There has been a change in the clinical design scope.

Hon. G. Abbott: Noting the time, then, I will have to return, and the member will have to return to the resumption of estimates later today.

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

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

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

N. Macdonald: It's a pleasure to be here again and to ask questions. Today we will be primarily asking questions about PavCo, trying to understand what has happened there. We're also going to be asking questions of course about the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project. I'm going to use the acronym that I heard from the ministry staff, which is VCCEP. That's the acronym that I think we're both familiar with.

There were some interesting things that I learned yesterday. My background of course is as a teacher. I think my colleague here comes with a background as a bus driver — and a football fan, of course. We're going to try to get to the bottom and understand, I think, from the context of fairly normal citizens, about sums of money that seem huge and to understand how a project that was presented to the public as something that was very straightforward….

As I look at some of the documentations that were put together to begin the Vancouver Convention Centre expansion, you basically see it presented as something that's…. They didn't use the term "no-brainer", but they basically said that it was very much like that. It was something that simply could not fail to be a project that was brought in on time and on budget, and yet that hasn't happened.

It is a project that in fact has gone — it looks like it may be — close to $400 million over budget. That's despite the assurances of a series of ministers. I recognize that the present minister has been much more careful.

While that gives us an opportunity to make fun of the "in range" things that he has said, I think it's a much more prudent response. He's been much more careful than his predecessors in laying out what the final costs are going to be.

That's what we want to finish with at the end of the day — to have a greater understanding as representatives of the public as to how this project could have gone so wrong. We're going to begin that by asking for something that I thought I had an indication that I would receive: the dates, the payment schedule of the

20-odd conventions that the minister has identified as needing the expansion. If you have that documentation, I would appreciate receiving it — and now, if we can.

Hon. S. Hagen: I appreciate your comments this morning. We have all been concerned, of course, about the escalating construction costs of this project. At the end of the day, I think what's important is that the citizens of British Columbia end up with a project that they can be very proud of and that will host many, many conventions into the future.

I would just like to read into the record some of the conventions that have been booked. These are significant conventions that could not have been hosted in the existing trade and convention centre.

I would also like to add to the list of staff that I introduced yesterday the name of Barbara Maple, who is the CEO of the existing trade and convention centre and who is here with us today. Welcome to Barbara.

The first convention that I want to talk about is the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the IBEW, based in Washington, D.C. They are bringing their 38th convention to the Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Centre in September of 2011. This is the IBEW's first convention in Vancouver, and its first in Canada since 1986.

This is a quote from the international secretary-treasurer of the IBEW, Jon F. Walters. He said: "We're very excited about coming to Vancouver in 2011 and holding our convention in a new building with such incredible features, including the inspiring views of the mountains and ocean."

"The IBEW convention is significant for VCCEP and Vancouver, particularly because our expansion makes it possible for us to complete" — which is a quote of Barbara Maple.

I won't read you my quote. That would be somewhat self-serving. I think this is interesting:

Okay. That's very good to know. We talked yesterday about 27 conventions coming because of the new facility. This is actually in addition to that. This will be the 28th.

Another convention that will be coming is the American Association for Justice, the AAJ. They've signed a contract to bring their annual convention to the new convention centre in July of 2010. This association was formerly called the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. It's also based in Washington, D.C., and is the world's largest trial bar association.

This association has 56,000 members. The AAJ promotes justice and fairness for injured persons, safeguards victims' rights and strengthens the civil justice system through education and disclosure of information critical to public health and safety.

Here's an interesting piece of information. This is about a green event that wins a gold award. This is in Vancouver in April of this year, 2007.

Again, Shawna McKinley, who's the executive director, explaining why the six-day, 10,000-participant conference was chosen above other entrants:

I learned, when I was in Germany at the large conference earlier this year, that the tourists from Germany, for instance, were very interested and actually knew pretty well everything about the new trade and convention centre, including its green roof, which is a tremendous thing from an environmental point of view.

Now, Dr. John Wiebe, who is the president and CEO for the Globe Foundation of Canada, says: "Our team at Globe worked hard to create a greening program that successfully integrated event operations with marketing and communications."

I won't read my quote into the record, but these are all examples of the success of both the existing trade and convention centre and the new trade and convention centre.

In talking about the existing trade and convention centre, what we're talking about is the addition to that, which is a big plus and will enable us to host conventions like the ones I've talked about. Since opening in 1987, the Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Centre has been B.C.'s flagship convention facilities, hosting 350 events and 600,000 delegate days each year, generating more than $240 million in annual economic benefits.

When the major new expansion completes, VCCEP will offer a combined total of nearly 500,000 square feet of function space and will serve as the international media and broadcast centre, as the members know, for the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games in 2010. So the addition we're talking about will double the economic benefits for British Columbia and will certainly be a big plus in attracting conferences like the examples I gave.

As I mentioned yesterday, there are groups that have signed up, which don't want to be discussed in public at this point. There are reasons they have for that, I'm sure. That is a confidentiality that the Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Centre respects.

N. Macdonald: We have limited time, as the minister knows. I asked for a pretty straightforward piece of information. I wanted the 27 — now 28, I guess — conventions the minister identified as needing the expansion. I need that in print. I wonder if that could be passed to us, and we'll make copies of it.

I assume what is there and what the minister read from was a list. If there are reasons why the names of the various conventions can't be given, I imagine that has been vetted from there. Nevertheless, the information is available to us, and I assume that's coming to us.

Just to get into a set of questions on B.C. Place, to try to wrap that up by the morning. What is the going rent for B.C. Place? Then I'll ask if you could send across the document that we requested, and we'll have a look at that.

Hon. S. Hagen: I have two answers here, and I can't remember which question you asked first.

The first answer I'll give you is with regard to the rates charged for B.C. Place. They have a rate card, which is a public document. The rates vary because it depends on whether it's a community event, a concert or a trade show. I'm happy to provide you with a copy of that card.

The second question was with regard to the 27 — now 29 — conferences that have been booked, because we're able to, for the new trade and convention centre. I'll call it the trade and convention centre.

We're compiling a list of the ones that the clients are allowing us to release. Of course, this is an ongoing process. I mean, as PavCo books events and as they get permission to, then they send out a press release saying: "We've booked conference X."

But to date in total…. That 27 has now grown to 29, but the 27 number of non–resident delegate days is 586,000. The significance is that those are the most meaningful to the province from an economic development point of view. Of course, that is part of the 50 conventions that have been booked, which have a total economic benefit to the province of over $850 million.

I think I did mention to you an example. I'll use the American Association for Justice. The four-day event translates to 15,000 non–resident delegate days with an economic impact to the province of $18.1 million Canadian. That is in addition to the 586,000 non–resident delegate days.

N. Macdonald: Those two pieces of information, then…. My assumption is that the card, which is a public document, for B.C. Place…. You've indicated that you'll send that to my office, so I would expect that in the next few days. You can correct me if I've misinterpreted that, but that's my assumption with that one.

The second one. The interest we have in the conventions is not necessarily the specifics of who is coming and what sort of attributes they're looking to, but more to understand exactly over what period of time we're talking about — to just get an understanding. It would be one thing if you're talking about — and I assume you're talking about — 29 separate conventions. It's also possible, as far as I know right now, that it would be one convention that would come for three years — one after another after another — and that that would be counted as three.

Those are the sorts of things I want to understand. If it's over a ten-year period, that's different in terms of understanding the importance of the expansion rather than if this was happening in a two-year period. That's the sort of information.

The other parts that you provided, of course, are valuable too. But not so much…. The information, I

will accept, is perhaps something that the people that are coming wouldn't be interested in. But certainly we want to get a sense of 29 over how big of a period and how long they are staying and the numbers. These were valuable. The things that you gave on that one convention would be valuable to know for all of them, like I say, rather than the specifics of who is actually coming.

Getting on to B.C. Place, it would also be helpful to have copies of what would be normal rental agreements with full details about normal expectations in terms of what is expected of B.C. Place and what somebody renting the facility would expect. If you could send copies of those as well…. If you need to ask more specifically what I'm after here…. I just want to get a sense of what is usually in the contract and what expectations from both sides would usually be. That would be another document that it would be helpful to have sent to the office.

The question that follows that I would ask of the minister is: how much in total is being given to VANOC — in terms of how much time at B.C. Place is being given to VANOC? Just more details on that agreement, please.

Hon. S. Hagen: We'll be pleased to provide you with what we're calling draft contracts for B.C. Place — the contracts that we ask people to sign which lay out what is expected from both parties.

The amount of time that's being provided to VANOC by B.C. Place is from November 2, 2009, to March 19, 2010.

N. Macdonald: The decision to provide the facility at no fee to VANOC — just a question of: who made that decision?

As well, who negotiated on the VANOC side? Who were the participants in the meeting for the VANOC side? When did that meeting take place? If there was a series of meetings, which I expect there was, what were the dates of the series of meetings and who was negotiating as representatives of the PavCo side? Here I'm assuming that those would be the two parties and the only two parties. But if there were others, I'd be interested in knowing that.

Hon. S. Hagen: I actually appreciate the questions, because this enables me to get information as well. The negotiations between the general manager of PavCo and senior management at VANOC took place between September and December of 2002.

I also want to point this out, because I think it's important. This has actually been in the papers, so I'm sure you've read it. There is a benefit coming to PavCo of about $8 million in food and beverage revenues. VANOC is paying for the staffing for that period of time that I gave you, from November to March, and they're also providing upgrade dollars at $3.8 million.

N. Macdonald: Just for my benefit, when you talk about senior management and about different positions, could you put names to those so that I would know who the various individuals are? The $3.8 million in terms of upgrades — I'd be interested to know what that was for. Could you give me information on what specifically the upgrades are?

Hon. S. Hagen: The negotiations back in 2002 took place…. From PavCo's side, it was Howard Crosley who is the general manager, and from the VANOC side, Terry Wright.

The question about what the $3.8 million is going to be spent on…. There are a number of items — cleaning the inner lining, which we talked a bit about yesterday; disability access, disabled access; lighting; and updating fixtures.

H. Bains: Thank you to the minister for some of the questions that I had on my mind, and some of the answers that you gave to my colleague here.

Just staying where we are at right now — the negotiations between PavCo and VANOC. We've got some names of the hired staff, I would call it, so I just want to confirm…. The meeting and the negotiations took place in 2002. Were they concluded in 2002?

Hon. S. Hagen: The agreement was signed December 19, 2002. That would have been the completion of the negotiation.

H. Bains: You gave us a couple of names. There must be a team of negotiators from both sides. Who were the other negotiators or the people who were supporting these two gentlemen that you gave the names for?

Hon. S. Hagen: My staff is going to check into the records. They don't have the names at the tips of their tongues, but we're happy to provide the information.

H. Bains: While you're at it, I would ask the staff if the minutes of those meetings — you know, I'm talking about the negotiation sessions that took place — would be made available.

H. Bains: I just want to clarify that the minutes of those negotiation meetings…. Perhaps I'll ask you directly. Can you forward those minutes to either my office or my colleague's office? How long of a time frame are you looking at?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told that it might take a while to find these records, because they are so old, but I understand that under FOI we have 30 business days to locate, provide and FOI the information. It will be done within the time limits of the FOI rules.

H. Bains: I guess there must be some guidelines. These folks on behalf of PavCo must have been ap-

proached by VANOC because they needed a facility for that period of time. So are there any guidelines for the management to follow when it comes to renting that facility to whoever wanted to come in and use that facility for a period of time because a number of conventions and shows are being held there?

Are there some certain guidelines that they follow when they sit down to negotiate those deals?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I'm sure the member knows, these negotiations took place before the bid for the Olympics was put in. So this was part of the Olympic bid. I've already agreed to share the rate card for B.C. Place with the member.

On something like the Olympic Games, the IOC expects that publicly owned facilities would be made available to host the games. I don't think that's earth-shattering news. That's just part of what British Columbia has put on the table in order to get the games to British Columbia and Canada.

H. Bains: I appreciate the answer. If that's what the expectation is of the IOC, that's what the expectation is.

My question was…. Because it was a part of the IOC's expectation, the management must have been approached by someone from the government side, or from somebody, that…. "Hey, there is an arrangement being made. This is the expectation from IOC, and as such, we want you to tell us if we could use your facility. This is what we expect out of you."

Who made that contact from the government side, and who was approached at PavCo — was it the board, or was it the manager?

Hon. S. Hagen: I am told that the approach to PavCo was made by the Vancouver Olympic organizing committee, which would be the forerunner to VANOC. That was the committee that was putting the bid together. They apparently, I'm told, went to all of the venues — at least that were in place at that time — that they would need to host the Olympics to do the negotiations.

H. Bains: As we know, these are publicly owned facilities. The board running these facilities have an obligation, on behalf of the taxpayers, to get the best value for that asset, regardless of the use. In this particular case they were asked to make an exemption, I believe — if that's the right answer.

If that is the case, can the minister…? When I'm talking about the exemption, I'm talking about their general use for rental purposes, their normal method of renting that facility to generate funds on behalf of the taxpayers. This arrangement was different, or it was an exemption to the rules of the arrangement that is normally used.

Hon. S. Hagen: The negotiations that took place at that period of time, from September to December of 2002, were based on B.C. Place not losing out on business because of making the facility available for the Olympics. What they did was they were able to reschedule the shows. The auto show, for instance, is going to come in after the Olympic Games instead of in January and February, when it's usually held. They did get the advantage of keeping the $8 million from food and beverage sales. VANOC is paying for the staffing and, of course, contributing $3.8 million to the upgrade.

Just so the member understands, what hosting the Olympics means as a benefit to British Columbia, because it's a very important part of the discussion…. This is a backgrounder on the economic impact of hosting the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games. You're going to enjoy this.

Hon. S. Hagen: Okay, well, listen carefully, and I'll send you a copy of Hansard afterwards.

Vancouver and Whistler in particular, and British Columbia in general, will have their profiles raised — our profiles raised — throughout the world, strengthening tourism.

Before the Calgary Winter Olympics in 1988, Alberta had an average annual growth of annual international visitors of 0.25 percent. This is before the Olympics. They had an average annual growth rate in international visitors of one-quarter of 1 percent, and that was from 1972 to 1985.

In pre-Olympic years the number of visitors grew by 5 percent in 1985 and 8 percent in 1986. In the Olympic year, growth surged to 12 percent and then retained all of its post-Olympics gains with an average annual growth of 3.25 percent for the first five post-Olympic years. That compares to an average annual loss of 2.5 percent for the rest of Canada, excluding British Columbia.

Mega-events — and that's what the Olympics are — have a profound impact on the international convention business in host cities. Sydney, for instance, increased the number of international convention bids it won by 34 percent after it was chosen in 1993 to host the 2000 games.

Barcelona achieved a 21-percent annual compound growth in international delegates in the six years following the 1992 games and a 29-percent increase in the year of the games.

What we're talking about here, hon. Chair, is a terrific opportunity for British Columbia. I know that deep down you get that. I'm hoping to hear from you today that you support bringing the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games to British Columbia — I'm just hoping.

That will be what I would like to come out of today with. If I could just hear the NDP members say, "Yes, we are in support," regardless of what your leader has said…. Because this won't be the first time you disagree with your leader, I'm sure.

Hon. S. Hagen: Okay, well that's good. You're going to have to talk to your leader, though, because I've noticed over the last couple of days that if you disagree with your leader, there is sort of a penalty to pay. I don't want to see you in the penalty box at all. I want you to be supportive of the 2010 Olympics, to stand up and say this is great for British Columbia.

H. Bains: The minister gave a lot of political answers to a question that wasn't even asked, and almost put the Chair to sleep.

My question wasn't the benefits of the Olympics. The question wasn't the additional tourism that we are going to attract. We know all those answers. If I wanted to know that, I would ask you those questions. Those questions weren't being asked.

If you want to talk about Olympics and you want to give me some answers about Olympics, then maybe we can get into that as well, if that's where the minister wants to go. But I think right now….

H. Bains: Exactly. The minister is saying that he's not responsible for the Olympics. Therefore, I would ask the minister if he could stick to the questions that he's responsible for and at least get the answers to the questions that are being asked under his portfolio, rather than covering the other ministers' portfolios.

The question was very simple. An arrangement was made. Somebody had an expectation that the publicly owned facilities would be provided free of use. That's the statement. Then the process got in place. Someone started that process. Approaches were made on behalf of the organizing committee, on behalf of the government.

I'm just trying to understand how this whole agreement and process unfolded. When the PavCo management was approached…. I'm sure there are certain guidelines. They knew that those guidelines will not be followed because they are asked to step aside from those guidelines. Those are the general guidelines for rental agreements that are being used for any client that comes in. So the management team must have gone to the board for approval. Did they?

Hon. S. Hagen: The negotiations that took place between September and December of 2002 were just like other negotiations that take place for people who want to use and rent B.C. Place Stadium. The management look at the total revenue that they get from hosting an event. That's rent, food and beverage, staffing and all those things. As a result of those negotiations, over those four months an agreement was reached where B.C. Place gets to keep the $8 million food and beverage revenues. VANOC games are paying for the staffing. They're providing $3.8 million for upgrades for the facility. When the agreement was reached, it was approved by the chair of the board.

H. Bains: The answer from the minister is that it was approved by the chair of the board. So the entire board did not participate in approving?

Hon. S. Hagen: It was signed by the chair of the board, but she had the approval of the entire board.

Then I guess the board before they approved that arrangement…. It is a different arrangement than the normal negotiations, the normal rental agreements, unless the minister could tell me that it is exactly the same type of negotiations, exactly the same type of arrangement for similar uses.

I didn't hear that, because the first answer was that they were expected to give a publicly owned facility free of charge. If that's the case, that's not how you do normal negotiations. That's not how you rent this facility for normal use for any other renter. So if that was different than what goes on today, for example, for anyone who wants to come in for a car show or any other sports arrangement…. If that was different than these current negotiations and the current arrangements, did the board seek approval of the minister?

Hon. S. Hagen: To put this in the context…. I'm sure the member doesn't know this, but fiscal year 2009-2010, which is the period of time that the Olympics fall into, will be a record revenue year for B.C. Place. They are forecasting $20½ million in revenues coming into B.C. Place.

In this fiscal year that we're in, 2007-2008, the forecast is $11 million. So you can see the boost that's coming to B.C. Place because of the 2010 Olympics.

H. Bains: Again, I didn't get the answer to the question that I asked. I think I will be asking those questions fairly quickly. My question was: did the board go to the minister responsible at that particular time and have the minister's approval?

Hon. S. Hagen: I apologize for not answering that question. I get so excited about what this means to British Columbia and how the people of British Columbia will benefit from hosting the 2010 Olympics.

Hon. S. Hagen: You know, the member opposite raises an interesting point. The member opposite said that it started with Harcourt. I would refer to him as the Premier at the time — started with Premier Harcourt. One of the benefits of being older is that you can reflect on history a bit, and I actually remember in….

Hon. S. Hagen: I'll get to the answer, but I'm only addressing your colleague — okay? — because….

Hon. S. Hagen: Through the Chair — absolutely, hon. Chair, without question. And this is not a debate. This is a statement in answering a comment that was made by one of the members opposite.

As I mentioned, one of the benefits of being older — more mature, I guess — is that I actually remember the lead-up to Expo 86.

Hon. S. Hagen: Oh no, I always answer questions. That's my reputation — being steadfast and explicit and punctilious.

I do remember Premier Harcourt's statements leading up to Expo 86. The then Premier was mayor, I think, of Vancouver. He was either mayor of Vancouver or on city council in Vancouver. I distinctly remember, because it was widely reported, that he was opposed to Expo 86.

His comment was: "What happens if we throw a party and nobody comes?" That was the statement. As everyone in British Columbia knows, Expo 86 was an incredible success for all of B.C., and 22 million people came to Expo 86 in 1986.

It happened to be the first year that I ran for the Social Credit Party and got elected. Expo 86 was really a big part of my life. Giving credit to Mr. Harcourt, who I have a lot of time for, I think he learned from that experience. He learned that when you do something like Expo or like the Olympic and Paralympic Games, it's a huge benefit to the people of the province.

Expo was a huge benefit. In the years after that, I can remember how the rest of the province benefited from people coming back because they were there for Expo. So I'm really glad the member opposite raised Mr. Harcourt, because I think that's an example of how members opposite can learn.

As I said, my desire is that by the end of today we will have broad-based support from the New Democratic Party for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

H. Bains: I think it's unfortunate. The taxpayers watching this debate right now are looking for some serious answers to the serious questions about cost overruns — about how their tax dollars are being spent, how their tax dollars are being basically given away. But the minister, rather than answering those questions, which they deserve….

It's their money. It's not the minister's money. It's not this government's money. It's their tax dollars. Rather than answering the questions about how their tax dollars are managed, the minister is going everywhere except to the questions that are actually relevant to this debate today.

Anyway, I will not get distracted again, but I think the question is: did the board go to the minister at that particular time and have that approval by the minister?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm happy to answer that question. I wasn't the minister at the time, as the member knows. The minister certainly approved of the decision that the board made with regard to B.C. Place being one of the venues — proposed to be used, because we didn't have the games yet. It was included in the bid by the Vancouver Olympics organizing committee as one of the venues to be used.

H. Bains: The question I would ask is coming out of the answer by the minister. That fiscal year 2009 — the minister says 2009-2010 — the revenue would be forecast at about $20 million-plus. That is for roughly a four-month period that it is being used for the Olympics. Out of those four months, the revenue is about $8 million from the concessions. Therefore, the remaining $12 million is coming on the four months on both sides of that particular four-month period.

So my question would be: how many other agreements do you have going forward that you rent the facility just for the concession revenue?

Hon. S. Hagen: Thanks to the member for the question, because it gives me an opportunity to put on the record what a benefit having the Olympics in B.C. Place is going to be. This is the first time ever that $8 million of revenue will be forthcoming from food and beverage sales. That's almost a normal year's revenue for B.C. Place.

VANOC is paying for the staffing, and on top of that, they're providing $3.8 million for upgrades which will benefit B.C. Place into the future.

Now, there are basically three categories when the management at PavCo negotiate to get an event into the building. There are trade shows, there are community events, and there are sporting events. I have already agreed to provide your colleague with what they call the card, which outlines the rates — not just rental rates but the food and beverage sharing, staffing and that sort of thing.

H. Bains: The $20 million for that fiscal year — is that net revenue, or is that gross?

Hon. S. Hagen: If the member would like to make a note to go to page 23 of the PavCo service plan, he will see the projections on revenues and expenses for the fiscal years from 2005 to 2010. He will see that the best fiscal performance, certainly from 2006 to 2010, will be in 2010.

H. Bains: Again, I didn't get the answer. I think the question was: what is the net revenue for that fiscal year? You gave me the gross of $20 million. While you're at it, perhaps you could also give me what net revenue is coming during that four-month period when you're getting $8 million from beverages and other concessions. Can you break that down?

Hon. S. Hagen: Right. We haven't broken it down to the four-month period, but I can tell you that the net income forecast for this fiscal year that we're presently in is, in rounded numbers — a minus number, which the government contributes to PavCo — $5.8 million. The net income in brackets for '09-10 is $4.66 million.

H. Bains: Can I ask one last question of the minister? If they don't have the information today, I would appreciate it if the minister could forward that information to us in the next few days.

You have the resources to take a look at what your expenses are going to be in that year. Obviously, you know your revenue. What would be the total profit for that year? I think you gave me that as $4 million or some number.

If you could break them down into those four-month periods — the four months immediately prior to the Olympics and the four months immediately after the Olympics — what would be the net profit for each of those four months?

G. Gentner: Very quickly, I want to just wrap up with some of the questions relative to VANOC. If I have it correctly, I've heard some figures of about $3 million of capital that is going to be spent on lights, etc. Is that money coming out of the ceremonies budget for VANOC of $6.27 million?

Hon. S. Hagen: It's actually $3.8 million, which will add some money spent on lighting and some other facilities for the building. That will be coming out of the VANOC budget. That's a question that you should put to the Minister Responsible for the Olympics.

G. Gentner: I hear the total upgrade is over and above $5 million. Where is the rest of the $2 million coming from?

Hon. S. Hagen: The amount of the anticipated expenditure is $3.8 million. At this point in time PavCo has no additional funds to spend, so I don't know where the $5 million number came from.

G. Gentner: For some time there have been needed speaker improvements — audio systems, etc. Is this fund going to provide those necessary improvements?

Hon. S. Hagen: The $3.8 million is going to be spent on cleaning the inner lining, on disabled access to B.C. Place, on improved lighting and on updating fixtures. PavCo, in their budget, has a $1.1 million regular maintenance number, and they spend that money on regular maintenance of the facility.

G. Gentner: The world is coming to British Columbia to see the Olympics. It's going to be the biggest show on earth. There will be a lot of money spent on audio equipment, etc.

Hon. S. Hagen: The rent is for the bare stadium. If the Olympic committee wants to improve anything else in the stadium, that will be up to them. It will be their responsibility and their cost.

H. Bains: Can the minister provide us with a copy of the agreement between PavCo and VANOC?

Hon. S. Hagen: As in everything in the wonderful world that we live in, it will be provided to you subject to FOI.

G. Gentner: I want to briefly return to the notion of the deflated roof at B.C. Place — the controlled deflated roof. The manager of B.C. Place receives certain bonuses for performance. Could the minister tell the House: what was the bonus paid for '06 to March 31, '07, to Mr. Crosley?

Hon. S. Hagen: I don't have the number for this fiscal year. It will be published when the financial statements are published. But the general manager last year received a base salary of $126,000 and in the last fiscal year received a bonus of $30,000.

G. Gentner: I know what it was last year. I was asking what it was for '06 to March 31, '07. I'm not going to pursue that line of questioning any further. I'll have to wait for all the reports. I just thought we could do a comparison between what was paid in bonuses before the collapse of the roof and what warranted the bonuses after the faux pas, so to speak — mismanagement by B.C. Place.

I want to ask: before the collapse of the roof and the debacle at B.C. Place, when did management ascertain that there were serious leaks in the roof?

Hon. S. Hagen: I just want to correct the member's statement. He calls it a collapse of the roof; everyone knows that it was a controlled deflation of the roof. As the preliminary engineer's report states…. The preliminary report indicates that it was due it a combination of weakened fabric, human error and weather conditions. The final report is being prepared by the engineers and will come out in due course.

I am told by senior management people that there were no leaks in the roof discovered before the events

happened that caused the controlled deflation, and I want to bring the member to task a bit. You know, he calls this a debacle. It wasn't a debacle. Staff handled the situation extremely well. I mean, did anybody want to see the roof come down? Of course not. But, you know we had heavy winds, and we had the issue of adding more pressure and not adding more pressure.

But you know what? At the end of the day no one was injured. B.C. Place did not lose any business. I think the senior staff and ground staff at B.C. Place have learned from this. The roof is being inspected virtually daily by staff. It's being inspected by professionals annually. We pay attention to the reports that come in from the professionals, and we pay attention to anything that's raised by staff on the ground.

At the end of the day we have a stadium that is going to host the opening and closing events and other events throughout those months leading up to and after the Olympics. It will continue to…. As I said earlier today, the auto show which normally takes place in January or February is going to take place after the Olympics, so they've been accommodated.

I don't think that the member is being fair to call this a debacle. I think he is taking a lot away from the staff at B.C. Place, who actually dealt with this in a very professional manner.

G. Gentner: I concur with the good work of the staff, and we were very lucky and fortunate there were no major injuries or fatalities. I do take it back. It wasn't a debacle. It was complete negligence by that corporation and this government.

Reports from B.C. Lions have reported that garbage cans were needed in the seats to catch the water — this was in October and November — and they would have to be emptied regularly or the water would flow down into level 4 concourse and ramps. Is that not true?

Hon. S. Hagen: I want to point out to the member opposite that he is not the only football fan in this room. I'm also a football fan. I talk to Bobby Ackles regularly about a variety of things. Bobby Ackles, who's the president and CEO, has never raised that issue with me.

G. Gentner: Regarding the delay in the report, the report was supposed to come forth in April. My understanding is that Mr. Hamilton was to report back by April. Is there a reason why this report, which is supposed to go the occupational health and safety committee, has been delayed for so long?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I reminded the member yesterday, he's not an engineer; I'm not an engineer. We depend on professionals for these reports, and that report will be forthcoming when it's ready.

G. Gentner: Since the roof was a controlled deflation and had to have major repairs, can the minister explain to us if there has been a cost-benefit analysis for the costs of a total new roof?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told by senior staff that that has not been done. As the reports continually point out, the roof is in good condition and, with the repairs that go on annually, will be here for the foreseeable future.

G. Gentner: What is the future? I mean, we're not seeing any major due diligence. The neglect continues. What is the future for B.C. Place? You're not doing a cost-benefit analysis of total repair when it has a life expectancy of 25 years. It's pretty much over, since it was built in 1984, I believe. We're up. You're not looking at repairing the whole roof. What is the future of B.C. Place? How many discussions has B.C. Place or PavCo had with potential buyers of B.C. Place?

Hon. S. Hagen: The member knows, I'm sure, because I've said it publicly many times, that bookings are continuing on in B.C. Place to 2012. We are examining and we continually examine all of the future uses of B.C. Place — whether it should be kept in place or should be replaced or should have a new facility. You will get as many opinions on that as there are people in British Columbia, I'm sure.

G. Gentner: Has the minister received any professional opinions within his staff of what he is going to do with the stadium within five years?

Hon. S. Hagen: You know, we deal continually with the question of assets in PavCo, whether it's Bridge Studios or B.C. Place or the trade and convention centre, and what improvements need to be made. With regard to B.C. Place, these are discussions that are underway right now. We have a new chair of the board of PavCo, and he is taking a look at the options. The options, basically, boil down to three options.

I think we should treat this building with respect. It is an icon. I also remember when it was built and how proud we were when it rose out of the decrepit railyards that were there. It really added to the value of that particular part of Vancouver, as did Expo 86 and the development of the lands where Expo was located. I don't think anybody would be negative about what happened after Expo 86 with regard to those lands. I'm very proud of that.

(1) To renew. To develop a comprehensive plan for the facility and surrounding lands to maximize revenue for the site while continuing to own and maintain a first-class facility to service the needs of businesses and consumers and sports teams.

(2) To replace. To sell the site for redevelopment and replace the facility with a structure that can accommodate the displaced sporting and other events through a P3 process or other mechanism.

(3) To remove. To sell the facility for redevelopment and allow market forces to take care of the events displaced.

PavCo is investigating the feasibility of each of these three options. They will include the recognition

that, as I said, the facility is contracted for use to 2012 through its regular booking process.

G. Gentner: Was this study or review conducted by the ministry, or was it conducted by PavCo?

Hon. S. Hagen: This is not a study. This is a process that has just started. The new chair is reviewing it and, I'm sure, will report to me and to the board of PavCo with his recommendations.

G. Gentner: Which consultation firm or party is working on developing these three proposals?

G. Gentner: Has B.C. Place or PavCo met with a representative of Concord Pacific relative to the sale or redevelopment of B.C. Place?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told by senior staff that any discussions that go on are not about the sale; they are about the future of B.C. Place Stadium. I am told that no discussions have been held with any developers about the future of B.C. Place.

Has the ministry or B.C. Place or PavCo seen blueprints drawn up for the redevelopment of stadium lands?

Hon. S. Hagen: There are no blueprints dealing with the future of the property at B.C. Place.

Has the ministry or the corporation seen any sketches relative to the redevelopment of B.C. Place lands?

Hon. S. Hagen: Apparently, there are sketches that have been done about the enhancement of the facility, not for replacing or selling the facility.

N. Macdonald: 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.