Hansard — Tuesday, May 20, 2008 p.m.

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Statements		12595
	Mourning for earthquake victims in China
	Hon. S. Bond

Introductions by Members		12595

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		12596
	Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill M213)
	K. Conroy

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		12597
	First nations annual elders gathering
	G. Coons
	Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary
	J. Yap
	Quintin and Elizabeth Robertson
	C. Wyse
	Abbotsford regional hospital and cancer centre
	R. Hawes
	Esquimalt Naval and Military Museum
	M. Karagianis
	Behaviour of MLAs in the chamber
	D. MacKay

Oral Questions		12599
	B.C. Ferries board remuneration
	G. Coons
	Hon. K. Falcon
	M. Karagianis
	Funding for post-secondary education
	R. Fleming
	Hon. M. Coell
	B. Simpson
	Availability of beds at Vernon Jubilee Hospital
	A. Dix
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Cowichan Valley schools and child care spaces
	J. Horgan
	Hon. S. Bond
	D. Routley
	Child care spaces in B.C.
	C. Trevena
	Hon. L. Reid

Committee of the Whole House		12604
	Transportation Investment (Port Mann Twinning) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 14)
	M. Karagianis
	Hon. K. Falcon
	B. Ralston

Report and Third Reading of Bills		12623
	Transportation Investment (Port Mann Twinning) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 14)

Committee of the Whole House		12623
	Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act (Bill 18)
	S. Simpson
	Hon. B. Penner

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		12626
	Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)
	A. Dix
	Hon. G. Abbott
	R. Chouhan
	C. Trevena
	S. Fraser
	H. Lali
	C. Puchmayr
	B. Simpson
	K. Conroy
	B. Ralston
	J. Brar

Hon. S. Bond: On behalf of the Premier, I would like to acknowledge that on Monday, China began three days of mourning for the more than 34,000 victims of the earthquake that struck last week. British Columbians join the people of China and people around the world in sorrow for the devastating effect of this tragedy. It is difficult to imagine the impact that this has had on an entire nation and on family and friends in all parts of the world.

As the Premier said last week, British Columbia's emergency personnel and resources are available to assist in this very difficult time. The Premier has also emphasized the province's sympathy and offer of support to the government of China through the Chinese consulate in Vancouver.

I know that all members of the Legislature join me in extending our condolences, our support and our prayers during these days of mourning. I ask that all members join together as we honour and remember the victims of the earthquake and their families as they cope with this very tragic event.

C. Wyse: Today in the House, I welcome Irene Robertson of Victoria and Caroline Robertson of rural Alberta. The Robertson sisters are former residents of Williams Lake and the daughters of Quint and Liz Robertson, longtime friends of ours. I'd ask the House to make them both welcome.

J. Yap: There are two people in the visitors' gallery I would like to introduce today: Steven and Carolyn Dribnenki, who have been spending some time in our beautiful capital for a wedding this past weekend. They are visiting from Regina, Saskatchewan. Would the House please join me in making them feel welcome.

D. Routley: I would like the House to help me welcome two parents of school kids from our school district in Cowichan Valley. Hannah Seymour is the chair of the Koksilah Elementary PAC. Hannah is committed to furthering the Cowichan people's traditional ways through that unique school.

Michelle Martin is from Tansor Elementary and is a tireless advocate for her neighbourhood school. Will the House please help me welcome Hannah and Michelle.

R. Cantelon: It's my pleasure to introduce a number of distinguished guests who have travelled far to be with us here today: Minister Horst Guenther, a retired federal associate minister of Labour and Social Affairs of the government of Germany and a 22-year veteran of the German Bundestag; secretary Steven Hill, administrator of the Washington State Health Care Authority and co-chair of the International Disability Management Standards Council; Dr. Joachim Breuer, chief executive officer of the German federal workers compensation system and co-chair of the International Disability Management Standards Council; Prof. Allan Clayton, Deakon University, Melbourne, Australia, an internationally recognized workers compensation systems expert; Dr. Donal MacAnaney, University of Dublin, Ireland, foremost European researcher on mental health issues and return to work of disabled workers; Mr. Ralph McGuinn, former chief executive of WorkSafe B.C. and chair of the International Disability Management Standards Council on the global audit; also Joyce Gravelle, Kathy Eccles, Heather Persons and Wolfgang Zimmerman with the National Institute of Disability Management and Research.

S. Fraser: I will follow suit on introductions. One of my constituents and a good friend, Wolfgang Zimmerman, is in the audience today. He is the most powerful advocate for disability management in the world. Please make him feel very welcome.

L. Mayencourt: Today in the gallery we have some visitors from King George high school, which is in my neighbourhood of Vancouver-Burrard. Even though they are the best high school in my riding and the only high school in my riding, I want to acknowledge the hard work….

They are a groundbreaking school, and that's due in large part to the leadership of Terry Howe, who is the principal there, and also quite notably one of their teachers, Damian Wilmann. Damian was recently honoured by the Premier as one of British Columbia's most forward-thinking teachers, and we're very, very proud of him. He could not make it here for the ceremony to acknowledge that.

Would the members of the House please welcome all the students, welcome Terry Howe, but give a special round of applause for Damian Wilmann.

J. Horgan: I join my colleague from Cowichan-Ladysmith in welcoming some visiting parents from Ecole Mill Bay in my constituency of Malahat–Juan de Fuca. Joining us in the precincts today for meetings with the Minister of State for Childcare about important issues are LeAnn Williams, Blaine Cassel, Erin Arrowsmith and her lovely daughter Kate. Would the House please make the four of them welcome.

Hon. L. Reid: I have many guests in the chamber today. First, June Draude is visiting us, a dear colleague of mine for many years, representing the province of

Saskatchewan. She is the Minister of First Nations and Métis Relations. I would ask the House to please make her welcome.

Visiting from Zheng Sheng College in Hong Kong are 14 students, three teachers and their three Canadian hosts. The Integration Youth Services Society, led by Esther Ho, along with the Richmond Community Assessment and Action Network are hosting a Canadian youth drug-free project which brings students from Hong Kong to spend four weeks in Vancouver, San Francisco and Los Angeles, speaking with youth in North America about issues of substance abuse, cross-cultural education, personal development and community outreach.

We have Mr. Chan Siu Cheuk, Mr. Lam Hay Sing, Ms. Leung Kwai Fong, Miss Choi, Miss Ng, Mr. Luk, a second Mr. Luk, Mr. Lau, Mr. Tang, Mr. Benoza, Mr. Gurung, Mr. Leung, Mr. Wong, Mr. Lui, Mr. Woo, Mr. Chan, Mr. Wong, and with the youth services, Esther Ho, Tina Tsai and Rocky Zhang. I would ask the House to please make them incredibly welcome.

Hon. T. Christensen: Today over the noon hour in the rotunda, I had the pleasure to present the progress report for the child and youth mental health plan that was launched in 2003. I was joined there by a group of parents, counsellors, clinicians, mental health workers and advocates, all of whom have been very instrumental in the success of that plan.

I'm pleased to welcome to the House and hope that you will all join me in welcoming Dr. Jean Moore, Donna Murphy and Lisa Hansen from FORCE, which is aptly named in terms of its advocacy on behalf of families and children and youth with mental health challenges.

As well, we have two school counsellors from district 61, Helen Lenny and Diane Brown, and five folks from the Ministry of Children and Family Development in different parts of the province, doing great work on behalf of children and youth in the mental health area: Sarah Flans from Burnaby and New Westminster, David Barker from Trail, Kathi Camilleri from Campbell River, Karla Tait and Sandy Wiens. Would the House please join me in welcoming all of them.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I would ask all members of the House to please welcome Dan D'Autremont. Dan is the Minister of Government Services in the new government of Saskatchewan. Would everyone please make him welcome.

R. Hawes: In the gallery today is a great supporter and friend of many of us on the government side of the House, Terri Rainey from Maple Ridge. Could the House please make her welcome.

J. Horgan: Many members will know that we just had the Victoria Day Parade here in Victoria. It's an annual event that brings thousands and thousands of people to the community.

I just want the House to know that from my alma mater, the Reynolds marching band was voted the No. 1 one band in the parade. Also our pages — Dylan, Reid, Kayla, Nicki and Ross — are in the marching band. Could the House please congratulate them.

Hon. I. Chong: Today in the precinct is a school group visiting from my former alma mater, Mount Douglas High School. There are 29 people — 25 grade 11 students and four adults. The teacher accompanying them is Mrs. Susan Phillips.

Unfortunately, they are touring right now and will probably be joining us at the beginning of question period and leaving shortly thereafter. At this time, I would still like the House to offer their hearty welcome to them, as they will be joining us shortly.

C. Trevena: I would like to join the Minister of Children and Families in welcoming Kathi Camilleri to the House. She has recently joined the ministry. I know that after many years with Laichwiltach Family Life, it was a sad loss for them to lose Kathy and a great benefit for the ministry to have her. I hope the House will make her very welcome.

K. Conroy presented a bill intituled Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Amendment Act, 2008.

K. Conroy: I move introduction of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Amendment Act, 2008, for first reading.

K. Conroy: It gives me great pleasure today to be introducing a piece of legislation that amends the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in order to restore public access to information.

The amendments increase the scope of the act to include information from quasi-public bodies in order to preserve public access to information concerning bodies that are performing governmental functions. Control over excessive costs also makes information more readily available to the public.

Amendments to section 13 narrow policy advice exceptions, preventing information from being withheld when it is not directly related to policy or when the relevant government decision has already been made, and restoring the purpose of this section to its original intent. This act also returns the definition of "day" to its ordinary meaning and strengthens the principles of public interest paramount.

As well, this act increases the transparency of government with regards to information available to the

public. By expanding the scope of the Freedom of Information Act, enhancing the public interest paramount principle and limiting exemptions under section 13, as recommended by the Information and Privacy Commissioner, it restores a high standard for public access to information. Coupled with improvements in the time and cost involved, this act improves government accountability, transparency and openness.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M213, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Amendment Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Mr. Speaker: Just before we get started on statements by members, I want to remind members, particularly those reading statements today, that they read this morning's Hansard.

G. Coons: I am proud to announce that the 32nd annual B.C. Elders Gathering will be hosted by the Prince Rupert Kaien Island elders. For those of you that don't know, the annual elders gathering is an event that is much anticipated by first nations across the province.

Since the first elders gathering in 1977, it has grown into an important yearly event rich in history and tradition. For example, in 1982 in Prince George they began the tradition of choosing the king and queen of the gathering. This year's king and queen are two of my closest and dearest friends, Leonard and Mona Alexcee from the Tsimshian Nation. They deserve the highest respect and praise, as they were chosen for their ability to lead and their demonstrated community spirit.

Another tradition is the act of bidding for the totem pole carved by Frances Harne of the Stó:lô Nation for the very first elders gathering. Any group or nation wishing to host the next year's gathering must successfully bid on the pole. This bidding is a highlight of the gathering. Usually several groups are competing through song, dance and by trying to convince everybody at the gathering that they have the support of their community and much to offer. Exaggeration is allowed, but the winner must be able to follow through on their promises.

I'd like to congratulate the Kaien Island elders for their successful bidding on the pole this year. I'm glad that they feel strongly about what our region has to offer, and I'm sure that the attending elders will be satisfied that the Kaien Island elders, and especially Leonard, did not exaggerate too much when they made their presentation about the beauty, the opportunity for fun and the welcoming atmosphere of Prince Rupert.

I'll look forward to seeing elders from across the province in my home community this summer from July 7 to July 9. I'm confident that this gathering will build on the success of gatherings held in the past, bridging the gap between our first nations youth and their elders, preserving traditions and building on passing on new ones.

This year's theme is "The Elders are Watching," and we are all lucky that the elders are watching — watching to ensure that we don't forget history and watching to ensure that in our rush towards the future, we do not make foolish decisions.

J. Yap: I rise today to speak of a group of unsung heroes in my community and many others in British Columbia. These men and women bravely risk their lives, take time away from their families and spend countless hours in training, all with the end goal of keeping people on our waters safe. I'm of course speaking of the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary.

The Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary Pacific is manned by approximately 1,000 highly trained volunteers who are there to lend search and rescue assistance services in the coastal waters of B.C. 24 hours a day every single day of the year. In the past year the Coast Guard Auxiliary has been responsible for saving over 186 lives in our coastal waters and assisting countless others.

These volunteers come to the rescue in boating emergencies, missing persons operations, medical evacuations and any other marine-related incident that needs assistance. My community, Richmond-Steveston, is fortunate to be looked after by Coast Guard Auxiliary Unit 10 since its beginnings in 1988. This unit is recognized countrywide as one of the top units in Canada.

The operations of the auxiliary Coast Guard unit 10 are funded mainly through two non-profit organizations, the Richmond Marine Rescue Society and the Strait of Georgia Marine Rescue Society. These organizations work tirelessly to raise the funds needed to ensure that our waters are safe for all of us.

I was fortunate to attend the unit 10 open house recently, and I felt humbled to mingle with the many volunteers who so selflessly work to ensure the safety of others. These exemplary citizens are what community spirit is all about. I would like members of the House to give a huge thanks to all those men and women who put their own safety aside to help people when they need it most while on the waters of our coast.

C. Wyse: During introductions today the House welcomed Irene and Caroline Robertson. As I mentioned, they are daughters of Quint and Liz Robertson, who died recently in Victoria.

While the Robertsons moved to Victoria a few years ago, they lived in Williams Lake for almost 40 years. Sadly, they passed away recently, within ten months of

each other. Their passing leaves a hole in the lives of their family, their friends and in many communities throughout the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

The Robertsons were a fine example of lives lived well. Their commitment and contribution to their community was remarkable. Both longtime teachers, they also served at different times as presidents of the local teachers association and as councillors for the city of Williams Lake and were life members of the Williams Lake Stampede Association. Quint also served two terms as trustee on the local school board.

Elizabeth established the first native Indian teacher education program through UBC, was a founding member of the Cariboo Friendship centre, the Station House Art Gallery and the Williams Lake Museum and Historical Society. She also served on the National Parole Board, as a director of the Social Policy and Research Council of B.C. and as a returning officer for federal elections. She was recognized as Williams Lake Citizen of the Year in 1991 and received both the Canada 125 Medal and the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal.

Like Elizabeth, Quint was an involved and reliable volunteer in the community. In addition to his terms as city councillor and school trustee, he served as president of the Royal Canadian Legion branch 139 in Williams Lake. Quint often visited schools on Remembrance Day to share his World War II naval experience with district students. He delivered meals to seniors and shut-ins and offered his help in many community organizations.

I ask the House to join me in recognizing this wonderful couple, who demonstrated such a strong commitment to their community. They will be missed.

R. Hawes: Last Friday a ceremony marked 100 days until the new Abbotsford regional hospital and cancer centre will open. It will be the first acute care hospital in British Columbia built from the ground up and fully integrated with a cancer centre, and what a remarkable facility it is.

Rooms are all orientated to views of Mount Baker, rooftop gardens run into beautifully landscaped courtyards, and all have very large windows to allow in maximum natural light. There are no rooms with more than two beds. The new acute care hospital expands OR capacity, maternity, ICU, pediatrics and psychiatric beds.

There are new services including geriatric beds, a cardiac care unit, oncology beds and a new dialysis unit. The cancer centre will house 12 chemotherapy chairs, four linear accelerators for radiation therapy as well as pain management and palliative care. Included with two new CT scanners will be the Fraser Valley's first MRI scanner.

Already the hospital is attracting new physicians from across Canada and internationally. It's attracted much other attention as well. The building is built to the greenest standards, and certification under the LEED program is being sought.

The $330 million project was built as a P3 with Access Health Abbotsford and was on time and within budget. It was named the top P3 of North America by the prestigious Project Finance magazine in 2005.

Fraser Valley residents have waited patiently for over 20 years and through numerous false sod turnings and announcements for this new facility. On August 24 of this year the hospital will see its first patients transferred from the old MSA Hospital.

On a personal note, my daughter-in-law Nikki is expecting a little sister for Dylan, Hayden, Nick and Benny, and her doctor projects August 24 as her due date. That would be my ninth grandchild and would make opening day extra special.

M. Karagianis: My community of Esquimalt has a long and proud naval and military tradition, and that pride is on display at CFB Esquimalt Naval and Military Museum. Located in 19th century buildings at Naden on Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt, this museum informs and educates with displays and exhibits telling the remarkable story of Canada's naval presence on the west coast right from 1848, when Esquimalt Harbour began to be used as an anchorage.

The museum is part of a national historical district and traces the ups and downs of the Canadian navy with a series of exhibits from the navy's formation in 1910 through the turbulence of two world wars, the conflict in Korea and beyond.

It tells the story of the Women's Royal Canadian Naval Service and the challenges of defending Canada's west coast. The museum represents the proud heritage of the Canadian Women's Army Corps, which had its beginnings at the Esquimalt base in 1941. Nearly 22,000 women served in the Canadian Women's Army Corps in the Second World War, paving the way for future generations of Canadian servicewomen and bringing the issues about equality to the forefront.

As well as exhibits and displays, CFB Esquimalt Naval and Military Museum houses an expanding archive and library that includes thousands of photographs, documents, histories of Canadian naval vessels, navigational charts, biographies of important leaders in the Royal Canadian Navy and much, much more.

The museum has grown in size and scope thanks to the tireless and dedicated efforts of its staff and volunteers. I hope the members here will join me in acknowledging the importance of their work and thank them for their contribution in celebrating our proud military and naval history. I sincerely hope that members will take the advantage to go to the museum and view the things that they have on display there.

D. MacKay: Today I would like to take the two minutes allotted to me to speak about peace, order and

good government. That's what this place is all about. All of us in here were elected by our constituents for a period of time for that sole purpose.

However, Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that there are times in this chamber when this is not happening. There are times when the behaviour of the members makes your job very difficult. The behaviour would not be tolerated in classrooms in our school system today. However, it does happen here in spite of your attempts to control elected members. At times it sounds like dogs who bark just for the sake of barking in spite of the repeated attempts by the owners to get the dogs to be quiet.

I received the following suggestion from a constituent, and I support this. In the case of the dog, the owner does have an electronic device that can be used to train dogs not to bark. I refer, of course, to the bark collars that send an electrical shock through the collar when the dog barks.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you could look at a similar device to control members of this Legislature. All members who enter this chamber for the debates would be required to wear a similar device. Once recognized by the Speaker and when the member's speaker light is illuminated on here, the bark collar or bracelet would be neutralized. If another member tries to speak or heckle who has not been recognized and his or her light is not on, they would receive the appropriate electronic shock. This would ensure peace, order and good government.

Mr. Speaker: Members, just a friendly reminder that cell phones should be made sure that they're turned off. I'm sure the offending member will report to their respective Whip right after question period.

The other thing is that last week, leading right off where the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine finished off, wasn't something…. I don't think any of us can be very proud of what took place. Even though we won't have collars, certainly I think that we all should take heed of the fact that we do have a lot of school children watching and a lot of school children in the galleries at times. I think that we should act appropriately for what we were elected to do.

G. Coons: Earlier this year the Minister of Transportation's handpicked Ferries board gave themselves a hefty 60 percent pay raise and a big boost to their stipends, where the minister's own friends got in on the deal. Under this minister's watch, the B.C. Ferry Services board has increased from eight to 16 members. Directors' pay has shot up 140 percent from $20,000 to $48,000, and their stipends have shot up to $1,500 from $1,000. Looking back at the board minutes, they show that these decisions have happened over the years in a series of three-, four- and five-minute meetings — five-minute meetings, hon. Speaker.

Can the Minister of Transportation explain why his handpicked board should get $1,500 to meet for five minutes about their own pay while ferry users are being hit with ever-increasing fares?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, first of all, I think it would be helpful if the member actually got his information right for once. It's not a handpicked board by this government, and the member knows that. [Laughter.]

Well, there's apparently laughing on the other side, so they forget that it's communities that put forward names. It's labour that puts forward names. Nevertheless, I'll put that aside for a moment.

The fact of the matter is that the member is confused. He's confusing the work of the B.C. Ferry Authority and the work of the B.C. Ferries board. Most members of the board serve on both of those boards. They may handle the information on….

Hon. K. Falcon: Oh, I'm sorry this is a challenge for the members opposite. I'll try and walk them through corporate governance, if they'd like. I'm happy to take a few minutes on that. I realize that there's not a lot of corporate experience on the other side, so I'll go slow here.

Hon. K. Falcon: …that the members that sit on the authority may only have a few minutes' meetings, because they're talking about strategic direction. Then they move to the ferry corporation board, which oversees all of the decisions of the board. That takes the better part of a day.

G. Coons: Yes, the theme is very evident here. It's another do-nothing minister who is also very confused about the boards that he has created.

In February 2004 the B.C. Ferry Authority board met for six minutes at the Pan Pacific Hotel in Vancouver. Eight of the nine directors were there. They each got a thousand bucks for those six minutes. That's just one of the examples, one of the many examples. Now there are even more directors making thousands more, with even bigger stipends. Taxpayers and ferry users are shelling out thousands of dollars while fares keep going up. This is a significant amount of money when communities up and down the coast are hurting.

When will the minister finally get involved and put an end to this wasteful use of taxpayer money?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'll try and be more helpful and clarify things for the member, because obviously the member is not understanding what I said the first time. For the benefit of the member, the reason why they had an eight-minute meeting is because they were dealing with governance issues, and there were no governance issues necessary to spend more than eight minutes on.

The member should know that they then immediately move into the board issues dealing with the ferry corporation board. Those are all of the issues dealing with the ferry corporation procurement — building new ships, investing in terminals — as, by the way, they have over the last seven years, with almost $1 billion in new investment to make up for the total mismanagement and lack of investment under that NDP government.

G. Coons: I'd like to clarify this for the minister. I would assume that the governance committee would look after the governance issues that he was referring to, and not the board of directors.

So let's review. Under this minister, the number of directors on B.C. Ferry Services has increased 100 percent. The stipend for meetings has increased 50 percent. Their salaries have shot up 140 percent — and thousands and thousands of dollars for meetings like the one at the Kingfisher Oceanside Resort and Spa. That meeting at this oceanside resort and spa was four minutes long. The only thing on the agenda was setting the date for the annual general meeting.

Can the minister please explain when huge raises and cushy appointments for his friends become more important than affordable fares?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, I think the member has to think about this for a second. I mean, does the member really believe that they went to the Kingfisher and had a four-minute meeting? Even in the member's bizarre world, does that actually make any sense to the member? Of course that's not the case, Member.

Their meetings generally take the better part of a day. The fact of the matter is that there are two issues they deal with — those regarding the Ferry Authority and those regarding the actual board itself and oversight of the ferry corporation. I know that's difficult for the member to understand, but that's just the way it is.

What is really important here is to recognize something, and that is that, sadly, we had a ferry corporation we inherited where the average age of the vessels was 42 years old. There had been so much political mismanagement that the ferry corporation was essentially bankrupt when we took it over in 2001.

Today they've got a $2.5 billion capital program underway. All the vessels are being replaced. All of the terminals have been extensively upgraded. We've got labour peace, and we've got a ferry corporation that the public can finally have reliable service with in the province of British Columbia.

M. Karagianis: The meeting started at 10:31 p.m.; it ended at 10:35 p.m. — four minutes. Admittedly, it's at night, so maybe that's worth more for a meeting. But four minutes and $1,500 — that's $375 a minute for this meeting. They meet for four minutes, they approve their own wages, and they get 1,500 bucks. Let's hope that the TransLink board doesn't hear about this one, or they're going to be wanting to jack up their rates.

My question is to the minister. Does the Minister of Transportation really think his friends are worth $375 a minute while B.C. ferry users are being slammed over and over again with higher ferry fares?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'll try and explain this to the member once again. She's not getting it, apparently. The member, again, thinks that…

Hon. K. Falcon: …the board members met for five minutes, and that was all they did. That's incorrect, actually. The member shouldn't mislead the House or the public of B.C. by suggesting that.

The fact of the matter is that these board members that serve on the authority board — listen, Member, you might learn something — also serve on the ferry corporation board. There are two boards — okay? They have a meeting of the authority board that may take only four or five minutes, because it deals with governance issues. If they don't have issues of governance to deal with, the meeting ends.

They then move on to the other meeting business, which is the ferry corporation itself, which often takes most of the better part of the day.

Hon. K. Falcon: They do not receive a per diem for serving on each board. They get a per diem for the same work they do on both boards. For the member to try and suggest that there's $1,500 for five minutes of work is simply factually wrong. I'm saying it to her in this House as clearly as I can possibly explain.

Hon. K. Falcon: Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I am on record and the government is on record as saying that the recent increases that were passed and approved by an independent report, I thought, were

too generous, and I felt that the board should review them. I'm still of the same opinion.

M. Karagianis: Let's presume just for a moment that we accept the minister's explanation that at 10:35 p.m., after their four-minute meeting, the board went on to have another extended meeting. So let's just presume we accept that.

M. Karagianis: Maybe until midnight — who knows. It will be interesting to see what the cost was for that.

Hon. Speaker, this past February the board met for 20 minutes by phone — not even in person, didn't go anywhere, met by phone. For that, they got $750 each for their phone meeting. Again, let's hope that TransLink doesn't hear about this, or we're going to see those costs go sky-high for them, because they don't get $750 every time they make a phone call.

My question to the minister is: does he think that this is an appropriate expenditure of money — this gross waste of meeting money — when taxpayers in this province are paying that and ferry users are being slammed every single day with higher fares? Does he think that this is an appropriate expenditure of taxpayers' dollars?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, a little bit of a history lesson to the NDP, and I know they don't like history lessons. But there was a reason why there were recommendations, including from a former Auditor General and others, that suggested we make the B.C. Ferries board independent of government. The reason they wanted it independent of government is because, under the NDP, for ten years they interfered with the corporation to such an extent that the corporation was effectively bankrupted with over a billion dollars' worth of debt and an average fleet age of 42 years old. It was a disaster.

What has been done is to set up an independent structure, independent of government — not handpicked by government; independent of government — with names that are put forward by communities and by labour to form a board that acts in the best interests not of government, not of the NDP, but of the 20 million trips a year and the passengers that use that system.

In terms of the amounts that they pay themselves, I've been on the record as saying that I thought the increase they put through was inappropriate. I thought it was wrong. I thought they should review it, but we do not and will not be interfering with the day-to-day oversight of B.C. Ferries.

R. Fleming: When confronted with cancelled courses and programs and faculty layoffs across B.C., the Minister of Advanced Education has taken a hands-off approach — a "hear no evil, see no evil" approach. Total denial.

When the opposition and the media exposed the potential loss of the deaf studies program at Vancouver Community College last week, the minister smelled political embarrassment. But instead of reversing his decision on funding, he's now making up policy as he goes on what cuts are acceptable.

Here's the problem. With no new funding, saving programs for disabled learners means more cuts to other trades and academic programs. Will the minister just return the funding that he guaranteed up until two months ago and ensure that thousands of student spaces and programs aren't cut next year?

Hon. M. Coell: I think the member knows that my budget increased by $68 million this year and that actually thousands of new spaces will be created this year. I felt that programs that affect people with disabilities should be continued in the colleges in the province, and I hope the member agrees with me.

R. Fleming: It's not the cuts to his budget; it's the cuts that students in British Columbia are going to feel next year because he failed to defend it. He failed to defend it in cabinet and Treasury Board. What upsets college and university leaders most about this $50 million cut from the B.C. Liberals is the timing — two weeks before the beginning of the new fiscal year. Stable and secure funding — out the window.

It's now late May. Institutions across B.C. are facing deficits. Boards are cutting programs. At Vancouver community colleges there may be a thousand fewer student spaces this September. This minister hasn't even sent letters of expectation yet to institutions like the College of New Caledonia, but apparently they're supposed to follow his contradictory direction through the press.

Again to the minister: when will you put back the money you guaranteed to our institutions so programs are protected and young people's opportunities aren't sacrificed?

Hon. M. Coell: Every institution in this province got an increase in their budget this year, for a total increase of $68 million. But over the last seven years, every year they've had an increase in their budget, and my budget has been increased by 40 percent for post-secondary education. Only the NDP think that a $68 million increase is a cut.

B. Simpson: The College of New Caledonia has yet to get its letter of expectation from this minister. Yet the minister had the time to send an e-mail to CBC in Prince George, outlining his expectations for that college. In that e-mail he stated that the college will not be allowed to cut the programs for adults with disabilities, that they will not be given additional resources to

restore it and that they still have to operate within a balanced budget. The only thing the minister did not state in his expectations to CBC was what programs the college will have to cut in order to restore the programs for adults with disabilities.

So my question to the minister is this. Since you're so directive — through CBC — to the College of New Caledonia, what programs will they have to cut to restore the programs you're directing them to restore?

Hon. M. Coell: College of New Caledonia's budget has gone up by a million dollars this year. Now, I think it's important that when programs for people with disabilities or programs that affect people with disabilities are threatened, we would step in and say no. I hope you agree with me.

B. Simpson: The minister knows that this side agrees with him on that specific issue. He knows that. In estimates debate he was asked that question specifically about these programs, because the issue is that they are very expensive programs to run. The minister admitted that they are very expensive programs, that they're not cost recovery programs, and that the issue of those programs becoming susceptible to the budget shortfalls because of this minister's mismanagement of that file is that they cannot cost-recover these programs.

The minister can fix it. He can fix it today. All he has to do is commit to one thing. Will the minister fully fund the programs for adults with disabilities so the colleges will restore those programs year after year? Will you fully fund them?

Hon. M. Coell: As I said, the college's budget goes up by a million dollars this year. That's part of the $68 million increase. That's part of the 40 percent increase over the lifetime of our government. The college will be able to fund those programs, and they'll have to make decisions about other programs in the weeks ahead.

A. Dix: Hallway medicine has become a daily reality across British Columbia under this government's policies. My question is to the Minister of Health. Nowhere is this the case more than in Vernon. From January 1 of this year, the first four months of this year, there were 41 code purples called at that hospital — 41 calls to rapidly discharge patients because the overcrowding of the ER was at a dangerous point.

The minister knows that they need more acute care beds in Vernon, and he seems determined not to provide them. When is he going to do something about the emergency room and acute care bed crisis in Vernon?

Hon. G. Abbott: What has become a daily occurrence is an opposition desperate for headlines, so desperate that they call their own code oranges now. That's quite an amazing thing — to call their own code orange. In fact, what we saw when we looked into it was that it was actually code red-in-the-face. That's what the NDP were calling. As far as….

Hon. G. Abbott: I don't know why I seem to trigger bad behaviour on the part of the opposition. I don't understand that, frankly.

Vernon Jubilee Hospital is going to be the recipient of close to $100 million in capital investment in the years ahead for a new ambulatory tower, for additional acute care beds, for improvements to the emergency department — all of that investment long overdue. The opposition promises. Our government delivers.

A. Dix: Here's what the minister delivered. Fifteen code purples were called in a three-week period from March 27 to April 16 — 15 code purples in 21 days. There's a record to be proud of — 15 calls in 21 days. How on earth are doctors, nurses and patients expected to have faith in this government when that's going on? Doctors in Vernon have been calling the minister to account for months, and he is ignoring what they have to say. They note that that hospital operates, on average, at 110 percent capacity.

When can this community get a response from the Minister of Health or the Minister of Children and Families to the serious acute care bed problem they're suffering and the emergency room crisis they're facing every single day?

Hon. G. Abbott: Often when people ask me how things work in this Legislature, I explain to them the political division of labour that occurs here. The NDP delivers empty promises. Our government delivers.

Hon. G. Abbott: I don't know why they bring up this kind of behaviour. I really don't.

Hon. G. Abbott: Just last Friday I was at the new Abbotsford regional hospital and cancer centre — as the member noted, a $355 million investment in the eastern Fraser Valley. For ten long years we heard empty promises from the NDP. Our government has delivered.

When it comes to Vernon Jubilee Hospital, they did nothing for ten years. We are going to deliver a new

ambulatory tower, new acute care beds — close to a $100 million investment in Vernon Jubilee Hospital.

J. Horgan: My question is to the Minister of Education. She will know that on February 1, the Cowichan school district started a process to close four schools. Four months have gone by, and in that time she has received a report from her special adviser speaking to the need for those four schools. But more importantly, today parents are not just looking for spaces for their children to go to school; they're looking for spaces for child care. With the closure of those four schools, 260 spaces will be lost.

It's a very simple question to the Minister of Education. Will she stand in this place today and assure that those spaces will remain for child care in September?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, the member opposite is correct. In fact, this government did respond. We sent a special adviser to do work in the Cowichan school district, because we in fact expressed concerns, as well, about schools that are important — schools that parents were very concerned about. The member opposite knows that I had met with a number of parent groups about the Cowichan school district.

The report has been received. We will be presenting that report to the board of education. The recommendations are significant. They certainly point to some significant concerns for me as Minister of Education, but that report will be passed on to the board of education for their review and then made public.

J. Horgan: I know the parents in the Cowichan Valley will be waiting anxiously for Monday night with respect to the school spaces, but this is a particular question about child care. It's a crisis in the valley. There are not enough spaces. If these schools go down, 240 child care spaces at a minimum — up to 260 — will be lost. Can the minister confirm that the report that will be issued by the board from the special adviser will include those child care spaces?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm sure the member opposite would want, first of all, to allow the board of education to see the report that's been prepared. It will be made public as quickly as possible after that. We had an excellent special adviser that did the work and looked at the issue of school use. One of the important considerations was the capital plan or lack thereof in this particular school district. All of those issues have been considered. There are a series of recommendations. The board will see the report, and it will be made public.

D. Routley: As a former trustee I can tell the minister that there is a capital plan that keeps coming up every year, and that is to close more of our neighbourhood schools due to funding shortages brought on by that minister. She is imposing growing deficits in our community.

We are seeing real people, real families, real children losing their child care spaces, real workers who can't take jobs because of it, and real businesses who suffer. Schools in our district are at capacity if you consider school-age children and child care spaces. The minister said she'll find spaces for those displaced students, but there's no such help for the parents who will lose their child care space.

This minister should stop spewing out numbers and face the real truth. Families are suffering by her policies. Will she finally coordinate her efforts with the Minister of State for Childcare and ensure that those spaces remain open for the people of the Cowichan Valley and their children?

Hon. S. Bond: We recognize the concerns that parents in the Cowichan school district have expressed. The member opposite knows full well that a very, very capable special adviser was placed to do an incredibly good job of looking at all of the issues, which includes the necessity for child care spaces.

But one thing we are going to do on this side of the House is talk about numbers. We're going to talk about the fact that the Cowichan school district received a funding increase of $3.7 million since 2001-2002 at a time when they have lost almost 1,400 students. We've put record levels of funding into public education, and we're going to continue to do that on this side of the House.

C. Trevena: The minister talks about numbers, but I think we are talking about real people here. We're talking about an operating room nurse who will lose child care. We're talking about people who are invested in the community. We're talking about a mom who wants to go back to school, who won't be able to go back to school because of the loss of child care spaces.

This isn't just an issue of the Cowichan Valley; it is an issue of the whole province. Everywhere people are scrambling. In the Minister of State for Childcare's own riding there are 80 people who turned up for an open house trying to find a child care space and basically begging providers for space.

My question is for the Minister of State for Childcare. There is a big problem in this province with child care. There is a crisis. When will she recognize that, and when will she actually do something about it — not just talk about new spaces being created but create real spaces for real parents who have real problems getting child care?

Hon. L. Reid: So $300 million of investment, and I'm happy to say that I've just canvassed these issues with the critic not so long ago, so she knows of what she speaks in terms of attempting not, frankly, to be straightforward with the public in the province of British Columbia. She knows…

Hon. L. Reid: …that she hasn't been straightforward, and she knows, quite honestly, that 2,200 spaces have been created and that, frankly, our goal was 2,000 spaces. We have exceeded by 200 spaces the number of child care spaces created in British Columbia.

Dollars have gone out for subsidy. Dollars have gone out for child care operating funding. Dollars have been put in place for recruitment and retention of staff. Everything that the sector has asked for has been delivered, and indeed, that….

Minister, partway through your statement you used the word "straightforward," referring to the member from the other side. Would you withdraw that statement, please.

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call committee stage debate on Bill 14, the Transportation Investment (Port Mann Twinning) Amendment Act, 2008, and in Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, continued debates on the Ministry of Health.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 14; S. Hammell in the chair.

M. Karagianis: I do have some questions here with regard to section 1. The explanatory note here says that this section amends the definitions of "agent," "concessionaire," "concession agreement," "due date," "excessive toll debt," "toll debt" and "vehicle," and adds definitions of "corporation" and "payment mechanism."

We are familiar in this House with the role of Crown corporations that preserve and manage resources for British Columbia taxpayers, but I would ask why it is required that we now have incorporated a specific definition here that talks about the corporation as being pertinent and meaning the Transportation Investment Corporation.

Can the minister explain why we are creating this new Crown corporation in this bill, which has been titled Transportation Investment — and then, in brackets, "Port Mann Twinning" — Amendment Act? Certainly, the primary explanatory note here makes no reference to the Port Mann Twinning whatsoever, but can the minister explain to me what the rationale is for creating this new Crown corporation?

Hon. K. Falcon: As I indicated during my first and second reading discussion of this bill, the reason we set it up is very much aligned with why tolling authorities were set up under W.A.C. Bennett in the '50s and why they are a standard feature across North America. That is, what you want to do whenever you have any kind of toll authority or tolling revenue is you want to have, for transparency purposes, the ability to show separately all the revenues, expenses and debt associated with that particular tolling authority.

The manner in which we believe that that can be appropriately carried out for the benefit of the public is by setting up a Crown corporation, a specific special purpose entity whose only purpose is to actually do exactly that — to collect the revenues, report out on the revenues, expenses, the authority, and to enter into a concession agreement with the private sector partner that will be responsible for building, delivering and maintaining the actual infrastructure.

M. Karagianis: Why could these duties, as the minister has outlined, not be carried out by ministry staff?

Hon. K. Falcon: Primarily because then all the revenues, expenses, etc., would all be rolled up into the overall government accounts. That means that there would be no separate accounts for the public or any interested members of the media or whoever to look at, and there would be no separate auditing process, etc.

It is the position of this government, for the purposes of clarity and transparency, that a special purpose entity, which is this new Transportation Investment Corporation, be created so that all of those issues can be shown separately, and all of them can be independently audited for the benefit of the public.

M. Karagianis: I think that there's a bit of a disconnect here. The minister has talked about this Crown corporation as being set up specifically to manage the tolling revenues and to manage the concession agreements, and we'll get into that a little bit further in the bill here. Now the minister is saying that this corporation is being created so that the tolls would not go directly into government.

My understanding is that tolls in this case will go to the concessionaire. Why do we need a Crown corporation to manage tolls if, in fact, they're going to the concessionaire?

Hon. K. Falcon: Under GAAP principles, the toll revenue will be recorded as revenue to the Crown corporation, and then it will be paid to the concessionaire. So the idea is that by doing it this way, there is very clear transparency in terms of what the revenue streams are to the Crown corporation, which are then subsequently paid to the concessionaire. But it provides that clarity and that transparency that we think are important in moving forward with a major toll project like this in the province of British Columbia — similar, of course, to exactly how they were done in the past under previous governments.

M. Karagianis: Are there no bodies within the Ministry of Transportation that could handle this, that would be responsible for taking the tolls and paying them to the concessionaire? Is that not already in existence elsewhere in the ministry?

Hon. K. Falcon: If we wanted, I imagine we could run it through the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority. But of course, that would then mix in and roll up all these dollars with all of the highway systems expenditures that are going on in the province, and that doesn't lend itself very well to the whole principle of transparency that we're talking about.

We think that for the purposes of that transparency it is important that there be a special purpose corporation that's put into place that will show all of the revenues that are coming in as a result of the toll revenues and then show the payouts to the concessionaire openly, plainly, not mingled or commingled with other dollars or projects, so that it will be very easily identified by anyone in the public or the Legislature.

M. Karagianis: Will this new corporation, then, be responsible for all tolls within the province of British Columbia?

Hon. K. Falcon: It is a special purpose entity, which is the term we used. It theoretically could be used for new toll projects. That would certainly be within the realm of possibility. But for the purposes of Bill 14, the primary purpose, of course, is for the Port Mann Bridge project.

B. Ralston: I'm having some difficulty in following the minister's argument. In Bill 14, in the amendment in part 4.1, "Transportation Investment Corporation," section 24.2, which sets out the purposes of the corporation…. This is the entity that's being talked about. I'm reading: "The purposes of the corporation are to engage in and conduct businesses related to delivering, managing, operating, tolling or funding transportation projects, including projects described in a concession agreement."

So it's clear, and drawing corporate objects is particularly important when setting up a company, although I think corporate law has probably evolved in a way that they don't bind the corporation to certain kinds of actions. But nonetheless, in the legislation that's proposed, the objects of the corporation are far more sweeping than the minister is saying here.

So is the minister saying that this is the first of many projects? Because when the minister says "theoretically," I don't think that accords with what's set out here in the amendment.

Hon. K. Falcon: As I said in my previous answer, Member, that's exactly right. The way in which this has been written is to allow us to, in theory, add new potential toll projects. If the government of the day should determine that there is a need for a new toll project, then this special purpose entity could be utilized for that new tolling project.

B. Ralston: Well, it's more than a question of discretion. Does it not bind the government to use this entity in the case of any future toll project?

B. Ralston: Can the minister, then, explain what the purpose of the legislation is in the sense that it appears to confer on the ministry or the minister a discretion to assign projects to this entity or not?

Now, the minister has made a claim of transparency and accountability. Why would that criterion, if it's to be accepted, not apply to any future project? Is the minister saying that there may be projects in the future that the minister would deem not requiring of transparency and accountability, and therefore not to be placed inside this corporation?

Hon. K. Falcon: No. Look, Member, all we're trying to do when we put together this bill is make sure that we allow government to keep its options open in the future. What this does is recognize that…. The government hasn't entered into tolling projects for well over 20 years. The only other project would be the Coquihalla, which has its own legislation, as the member would be aware.

So here we are in the year 2008 talking about a major toll project. As we looked at how we would put this toll project into place, one of the things we wanted to do was make sure we do it in a manner that clearly separates and defines the revenues that are going to be generated as a result of the project, the expenses and the debt associated with the project, in one Crown corporation, with all that information clearly available and visible to anyone who's interested.

We did not choose to commingle that with existing Crowns in the province, though one could argue that may be to our benefit if one is not a strong adherent to transparency. You could obviously think of ways of doing that that would make it difficult. That wasn't the approach we took. We wanted to make sure that all of this information was very clear.

Of course, when you do that and you introduce a bill like this, a special purpose entity that will be dealing with the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge — the Port Mann, of course, being the toll project we're

referring to here…. We also structured it and wrote it in such a way as to allow the possibility in the future that should a government of the day decide that they've got a project that is a candidate for being a toll project similar to the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge, they could avail themselves of this piece of legislation that would have the kinds of provisions in it that would allow for those kind of future projects, should they choose.

B. Ralston: In the original legislation, the Transportation Investment Act, part 2, "Public-Private Partnerships for Highways," gives the government the power to enter into agreements. Is the minister saying, then, that in the future the options with these two sets of legislation now, Bill 14 and the original act, both streams…? It would be open to the government to decide that…. Notwithstanding some of the discussion about transparency here, it would be possible for the government simply to enter into an agreement in the way that it is contemplated in the present legislation in part 2, "Public-Private Partnerships for Highways."

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is correct. Under the current Transportation Investment Act there would be nothing that would limit government from entering into a concession agreement with any private sector concern. The only issue, of course, would be that it would not allow for the separate accounting of the revenue, the expenses and the debt. We feel, just as most jurisdictions across North America feel, that the reason you set up a tolling authority, or in this case a Crown corporation or special purpose entity, is so that you will have all of that information separately held and separately reported and audited.

It's the position of this government that that is the most transparent way to move forward on tolling projects, initially of course, with the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge being the first toll project, but with the potential for a future government, should they choose, to add additional tolling projects.

B. Ralston: I wonder if the minister could help me understand the concession agreement. Sometimes when these kinds of agreements are discussed, the government is reluctant or refuses to disclose aspects of the agreement because it's viewed as proprietary commercial information. Is the minister saying that whether it's in the present Transportation Investment Act under "Public-Private Partnerships for Highways," section 2, or in this amendment under Bill 14, which would put that project into a separate corporation…?

Is he saying that the transparency that he's speaking of is that the concession agreement in all its details will be disclosed publicly?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member should know — I'm sure the member does — that all concession agreements are made public. The concession agreements are made public, of course, in accordance with the law. The law that I speak of, of course, is the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act, which governs these kinds of things. So all of the concession agreements will be made public in accordance, of course, with the conditions and terms that are laid out in the legislation governing the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.

B. Ralston: Well, I think that's an important qualification because of the manner in which the minister was speaking. If it is limited by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, will the minister agree that the substantive commercial details of the concession agreement will not be made public according to the law as it sits now? He particularly references the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Hon. K. Falcon: Typically, in previous concession agreements…. The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act allows for extensive public review of virtually all parts of concession agreements, but it does protect those that may have an impact on the commercial interests of the respective corporations. So there is an allowance there under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to protect that for obvious reasons, but we will be operating in this as we have on every other concession agreement entered into by government. It will all be done in accordance with the law and in accordance with the FOIPPA legislation.

B. Ralston: Would the minister agree that the creation of a Crown corporation isn't necessary, then, for that kind of disclosure?

Hon. K. Falcon: It really goes back to the issue that I talked about early on. The reason why we set up and were setting up a toll authority, or a Transportation Investment Corporation, is to ensure that those issues of the revenue expenses and debt are separately reported out on. If they're not, then you have a challenge — certainly, a challenge for the public in trying to figure out what revenues are being generated as a result of the toll, what expenses are associated with that, what debt levels are, etc.

It is the position of this government — and I think rightly, based on the experience across North America — that a separate authority is the best way to move forward in that regard with respect to those issues of accountability and transparency.

B. Ralston: The minister says that in order to have a disclosure of the finances of the entity, it's necessary to put the tolling revenue into a corporation. How does the privacy — if I can put it that way, in quotation marks — afforded to commercial interests conflict with that goal? It seems to me that if there is a substantial privacy interest related to the commercial interests of the corporation, the kind of disclosure that one will get will be minimal.

Let's suppose, for example, that the government has contemplated engaging not merely this project as a

toll project but other projects as toll projects or, as is happening in the United States, creating sections of highway as toll highways.

Surely the financial arrangements between the government and the concessionaire would be commercial information. So the future negotiations with those prospective concessionaires might be compromised if that knowledge became known — or not. I suppose one could have a different view on that.

Is the minister saying that this particular entity will disclose its finances transparently and not hide behind the commercial interest provision of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act?

Hon. K. Falcon: The Crown corporation will be bound by the legislation, as all Crowns are. The legislation, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act, will provide, of course, as a Crown corporation does…. As I said earlier, all of the revenues, all of the expenses and all of the debt associated with the Transportation Investment Corporation will be made public. It will have audited financial statements that will be there for the benefit of the public.

As I say, when we talked about the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act, it typically takes a very narrow view of information that cannot be made public, as the member would know. Typically, that is commercially sensitive information that could impair a company's ability to do business in the future.

B. Ralston: Given that the concession would be held by the Crown corporation, would it be open to the corporation — in the very broad powers that it's given later in the amendments — to sell the rights to the concession to someone else?

Hon. K. Falcon: Just reminding the member that we're dealing here with definitions. But for the purpose of the member's question, the short answer is no. The Crown corporation could not sell the rights to someone else. They would have to enter into a new concession agreement, which would have to of course be approved by cabinet.

So the short answer is no. Again, the member is probably getting pretty far into the bill, and I think we're still trying to deal with the issue here of definitions.

B. Ralston: Well, the very essence of the bill and what section 1 purports to do is create a corporation. So in section 24.23, it sets out very broad powers under the section "Capacity and powers," including "(a) acquire, construct, hold or improve transportation infrastructure or cause it to be acquired, constructed, held or improved; (b) acquire, hold or dispose of land… (c) with the approval of the Minister of Finance, borrow money…enter into other agreements…."

So is the minister saying that there is a restriction placed on the powers of the corporation that would forbid it from selling the rights to a concession? And if so, could he direct me to the section in the amendments that restricts that power?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member quotes section 24.23, and the member will know that in the first sentence it says "subject to this act." Now, if the member flips to section 2 of the bill, he will see that under 1.1 it says: "The minister may, with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, enter into one or more agreements with the corporation or any other person under which the minister agrees, on behalf of the government, to the terms on which the corporation may enter into one or more agreements under which…."

So it refers to the act, and the act is specific that it requires that cabinet approval I referred to earlier.

M. Karagianis: So the minister is saying here that the purpose in creating this Crown corporation is ostensibly around creating a separate reporting process. But I don't understand what in the present act precludes that same process from being used. What is it about the present act that needs to be amended in order to create this new reporting process?

Hon. K. Falcon: I guess to respond again to…. I answered this question earlier, to the other member. We could, under the existing Transportation Investment Act, enter into any agreement with any concessionaire to operate any kind of toll situation. The reason why we are not doing it in that manner is that all of the revenues and expenses would be commingled with government accounts, and it would make it pretty much impossible for anyone in the public to try and ascertain which revenues are actually generated from the toll revenues.

The point of setting up a special purpose corporation like this is so that we will have, as is done across North America and as was done by previous governments, particularly W.A.C. Bennett, who undertook most of the major infrastructure construction in this province through toll authorities…. The advantage of them is fairly straightforward. It just provides a very clear picture of what all the revenues, expenses and debt are associated with that particular toll project.

That's why we're choosing to do it. It makes sense doing it this way. The bill is written and structured in such a way as to allow future toll projects, should that be something a future government decides, to have the option of utilizing the existing structure under this bill to also look at projects to be utilized through this legislation.

M. Karagianis: The minister has said that this clearly is a government choice to create this Crown corporation. But with regard to the reporting-out process, I canvassed the minister with regard to other privatized concession agreements that are going on in the province right now. The minister was quite capable of reporting out all aspects of that, including moneys that had been contributed to the projects by the private partner. Can he please explain why this process is in any way different?

Hon. K. Falcon: Primarily because the previous concession agreements we've entered into have not had

a specific toll attached to them. So we have arranged those prior concession agreements, if I could refer to them as that, as performance payments that are made, based on issues of safety and lane availability, etc., — issues that we've canvassed fairly extensively in estimates.

In this case, we have toll revenue. One of the things I've been very clear about from the very beginning is that that toll revenue is to go towards paying for the cost of the infrastructure. When that infrastructure is completed, then there is an opportunity for the future government to now publicly have to acknowledge that the asset has been paid off and that it is time to remove the toll.

Should the government not decide to do that, then it will have to do that very publicly, because it will be very clear as part of the Crown corporation accounts, which are separately audited, exactly what the revenues, expenses and debt are that are associated with the project.

It is a vehicle for making sure that we have that kind of transparency and that we do not commingle it with existing government finances.

M. Karagianis: So the government is choosing to create this body, this Crown corporation, specifically because of the tolls. But the minister has said that the tolls are going directly to government and then being channelled back to the concessionaire. In what way is that different from performance payments?

Hon. K. Falcon: Just to correct the member there, the tolls go directly to the Crown corporation, and the Crown corporation in turn pays them directly to the concessionaire. That is, again, for the purpose of transparency. I would think that the member opposite would understand the importance of having a very transparent situation when a government is going to enter into a toll situation.

That's why governments in the past in British Columbia and why today across North America you will see toll authorities like this being set up…. They're being set up not because people love governments and love setting up authorities. It's because you provide a very clear, very separate, very transparent set of accounts that govern the revenue, the expenses and the debt associated with the particular project. They are independently financially audited so that every year those audited financial statements are made available for the benefit of the public.

I can't understand what part of that would offend the members opposite. It strikes me that this is common practice across North America, and it makes sense. It's transparent. If the member is suggesting to me that we should in fact commingle this with existing government finances and therefore hide the revenues, expenses and debt, and make it difficult for the public to find, then the member should say so. Then I would have clarity about the point the member is trying to make.

M. Karagianis: I'm not entirely sure why the minister is not prepared to answer questions on this or why he feels that these questions in some way are indicating an opinion one way or the other on this. I'm simply trying to establish why the government is creating a Crown corporation and what its purposes are.

I hear from the minister that the Crown corporation is being created as a tolling authority, not as a construction body per se. Is that correct? Is that what the minister said — that this Crown corporation is a tolling authority entity that's being created?

Hon. K. Falcon: What it does, Member, is provide the Crown corporation the ability to oversee the concession agreement. The concession agreement is the agreement entered into with a successful bidding group that will be responsible for building certain infrastructure, maintaining that infrastructure and tolling to pay in part for that infrastructure. So the Crown corporation is responsible for overseeing that concession agreement.

The Crown corporation, as part of its responsibilities, will also receive and report out on all the revenues, expenses and debt associated with the project.

M. Karagianis: So the Crown corporation is being created for two purposes: one, to oversee private concession agreements; and the other, to be a tolling authority. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Falcon: Basically, Member, I'm trying to think of ways of explaining this so that it can be easily understood by the public that's viewing it. Essentially, you have a concession agreement with a successful winning bidder from the bid groups that are competing for the project. Under the concession agreement, they're going to have obligations to build certain infrastructure, which obviously would include a new bridge, some interchange improvements, some highway improvements, etc.

They will also have the ability to toll, which sets this apart from other concession agreements we've entered into as government, because there will be toll revenue associated with this particular project. As a result of that, it is the view of government that the best model for providing transparency in reporting out on the revenues and the expenses and the debt that will be associated with the work that will be undertaken as part of that concession agreement…. This structure allows for very transparent reporting of that information.

It not only allows for it to be reported independently but also allows for it to be audited annually and for those audited financial statements to be made available to members of the public. I don't know how much more clear I can be on that point.

B. Ralston: Well, the minister speaks of it being a very transparent process. Will a member of the public, viewing the financial information that will be reported under this scheme, be able to calculate the return on investment of the concessionaire?

Hon. K. Falcon: After the selection of a concessionaire that results from the bidding process, there is a

value-for-money report that is typically issued. The value-for-money reports will weigh out the projected rates of return that the concessionaires expect to earn on the project itself. The member will also know that as part of the annual financial statements, it will show the revenues and expenses associated with the concessionaire for the work that's being done and the costs involved in that. It will show the debt-servicing costs, depreciation costs, etc.

M. Karagianis: In fact, what the minister has just outlined is the very same process that works for all concession agreements. Again, it sort of begs the question of why the government is choosing this particular route.

The minister has talked about the reporting-out being the very standard procedure for concessionaire agreements. He and I have canvassed this extensively in estimates. Clearly, we can see that this is a process that the minister is choosing to set up but is not a necessity in any way, shape or form.

I know that we'll talk later in the bill about some of the details here, but if this is ostensibly to set up as a tolling authority to collect the tolls, it would appear here that the government doesn't set the tolls. So how is the reporting process going to be conducted if the government doesn't actually set them? That's set by the concessionaire, so I don't understand how the concessionaire would give over its authority for the tolls to this Crown corporation.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member would be incorrect in suggesting that the tolls are set by the concessionaire. The tolls are actually set out in the concession agreement, and the tolls in the concession agreement are approved by cabinet, which is government. So that's simply not the case.

Look, I think that the member should be forthright with the fact, because we've canvassed this kind of stuff extensively in estimates, that the NDP are opposed to any form of private-public partnership. They've stated that on the record many, many times, and I've always been puzzled by that. We've seen in British Columbia over 24 projects representing $8 billion-plus in capital that have been delivered by a private-public partnership model, and all of them have been characterized by two things. They've been built on or ahead of schedule or on or under budget.

I have to say to this House that I am perplexed by the fact that, after seeing a string of successes like that, there would not be at least some acknowledgment by the NDP that this may be a slightly better way to undertake major complex capital projects than their own preferred method, which resulted in projects going wildly over budget and creating enormous burdens for the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia.

Here we are again. I have been unable to persuade the members opposite of the fact that this has been a particularly effective way of delivering large complex projects. It's not the only way, and it's not ideally suited for every single major project, but it certainly has been one where we have experienced some really significant successes.

I can point to projects right across the province that the member knows about, whether it's Kicking Horse Canyon, Sea to Sky Highway or the Canada line project — all of them public-private partnerships, all of them being delivered very effectively on or ahead of schedule and on or under budget.

The bill that we have here and the establishment of this corporation is being put into place because this is a unique private-public partnership only to the extent that it will have specific toll revenues associated with it. Because it will have those specific toll revenues associated with it, it is the view of this government, in following the practice of many other jurisdictions not only across North America but around the world, to set up an authority. The authority in this case will be a Crown corporation, which will specifically be set up for the purposes of overseeing the concession agreement.

The government establishes what the toll rate is as part of the concession agreement, and the concession agreement is then overseen by the Crown corporation and the Crown corporation board. It provides the additional benefit, which we think is very important, of making sure that all the revenues, expenses and debt associated with this specific project are independently being disclosed in a very transparent way and are independently financially audited.

I think that's a win for the public. I think that makes sense for the corporation. I think I've explained why this is a different private-public partnership arrangement than the others we've entered into, because of the fact that it's got a toll mechanism associated with it as opposed to the others that don't have specific direct tolls associated with them. That is why the government is moving forward and setting up the Transportation Investment Corporation.

B. Ralston: Would the minister agree that this mechanism that was set up could also be applied to future concession agreements which would involve existing infrastructure?

For example, if a decision was made to toll an existing bridge, this mechanism of the Transportation Investment Corporation would be suited for that purpose.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member's question was: could this act that we are currently debating apply to a toll on an existing bridge? The short answer is — again, in theory — yes, it could.

But the member would know that our tolling policy is very specific about the fact that there is not to be a toll on existing infrastructure unless there is significant investment being made in that infrastructure to provide a very quantifiable benefit for the travelling public and the toll revenues are going to be used to pay off the costs of those infrastructure investments that will provide that benefit. That position has not changed.

B. Ralston: The minister will be aware, I'm sure, from advice he receives that in many American states the practice is to take existing toll highways and, through a sale, give them over to private interests and receive, obviously, an immediate infusion of cash for the sale — giving to the concessionaire the right to take the tolls over an extended period of time. I spoke to that at second reading. I'm glad to hear the minister is confirming that this legislation gives that possibility to the government, and if there were to be policy changes in the future, this vehicle would be perfectly suited for that purpose. I'll leave the minister to comment on that if he chooses.

I have another question, though, about section 1. When Bill 43 was introduced…. It is a separate bill, obviously, from Bill 14. It, too, proposed amendments to section 1 of the Transportation Investment Act in the miscellaneous statutes amendment bill, Bill 43. It proposed amendments to section 1 too.

Can the minister advise why two bills are before the House, both purporting to amend the same section of the Transportation Investment Act? I'm not sure why. Is it a deliberate choice by the drafters? Is it to correct mistakes that were made in the first one? If so, why wasn't the amendment process used that's normally used for amending bills before the House, rather than introducing separate sections in a miscellaneous statutes amendment act?

Hon. K. Falcon: On the last point first, it was just a timing issue. The bottom line was that staff had not completed consultations with some of the groups that would be impacted by the amendments that the member refers to in the other piece of legislation. It's really not any more complex than that.

In terms of the first point the member made, I just want to correct the member because he's quite wrongly, actually, twisting or attempting to twist the words that I said with respect to what this act is eligible to do regarding existing infrastructure.

I want to be clear on the record. Now, the member may continue to do that. I don't mind, but I want to be clear on the record. I've gotten used to the members opposite twisting information around and making it….

B. Ralston: I object to that characterization. I ask the minister to withdraw that. It's unparliamentary.

Hon. K. Falcon: Certainly, Chair. I would withdraw the remarks. The characterizations were inappropriate.

Hon. K. Falcon: What I do wish to say is that the fact of the matter is…. I want to state for the record and to be very clear for the member opposite that selling existing infrastructure to private corporations would be totally inconsistent with the policy of this government.

For the member to suggest otherwise…. I will put him on notice that that would be completely inconsistent, wrong, false and not true. I don't think I can be clearer than that, but I've stated it for the record so that the member now knows that if he was putting forward that information, it would be entirely inconsistent with everything that I've said in this House.

B. Ralston: Well, I thank the minister for that concession. I won't say gracious concession, but for that concession. I agree that it conforms with the present policy of the government.

I do have further questions then, in the sense that the explanation offered is that these amendments in Bill 43, section 127, and in Bill 14 — both to section 1 of the Transportation Investment Act — amend very basic definitions. The amendment that's proposed in Bill 43 in section 1 adds a definition of a classified vehicle and an inspector. I'm at a loss to understand how the minister can say that there were some mysterious consultations required in order to include these very basic definitions in the act.

Can't the minister simply concede that this bill was constructed in haste, that it contained errors and that the amendments to the amendments are simply to correct those errors?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member would be incorrect in suggesting that. The reason why those amendments that refer to the enforcement of tolls are in Bill 43 is that the discussions that were taking place were with the FOI commissioner and also discussions with industry at large with respect to the issue of enforcement of toll payments on out-of-province vehicles. Those discussions were not concluded, and that's why they found their way into Bill 43, which, as the member will know — and I'm happy to have those — will be debated, of course, separately in this House.

M. Karagianis: Section 2 amends the section to provide for the agreements relating to the Transportation Investment Corporation. We've established that the investment corporation is being created. It is the choice of government to create it to oversee concession agreements and to act as a tolling authority, with the understanding that it could engage in other activities.

Clearly, in section 2 it talks about the minister's responsibility over this. I'm particularly interested in the subsections of this:

So I infer by the plurality here of agreements, not one, that this extends beyond the Port Mann project by talking about:

Now, I will make note that this is the first and only reference to the word "bridge" anywhere in this bill. I do know it's ostensibly considered to be the Port Mann twinning, but this is in fact the only reference whatsoever to a bridge, and it's plural — bridges. It would seem to me that in section 2 of this, the Crown corporation…. Its activities are to engage in agreements on multiple bridges and highway concession projects.

Can the minister explain, especially given the answers he's given previously, that this Crown corporation is a choice being created for a specific project? In fact, the language here talks about multiples. Can the minister explain that?

Hon. K. Falcon: Quite simply, Member, the bill is written, as I mentioned earlier in response to the member for Surrey-Whalley, in such a way that we don't close the door to allowing this legislation to be utilized for a future government that may have additional projects that are the same kind of tolling arrangements in which — if that was the case — they could utilize this legislation.

The legislation is drafted in such a way that we don't close the door on those future opportunities that a government may come across. To me, that's just good management. It would make no sense to me to have it written in such a way that you close the door to that and require a future government to have to come in with yet another piece of legislation.

The member correctly notes that it refers to bridges in plural. That's because it is written in a way to, as I say, leave that door open so that a future government is not constrained by unnecessary legislative work being required to undertake projects of a similar nature.

But of course this project and this legislation are absolutely central to the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge. We are, as the member knows, in the midst of a competitive bidding process as we speak. A concessionaire will be selected prior to the end of this year and a concession agreement entered into.

The corporation will need to be in place to make sure that we have the corporation in place, able to oversee the concession agreement and, of course, to ensure that they can manage the concession agreement in accordance with the provisions therein and to make sure that we will then have a reporting structure which, as I said earlier on, will allow for the separate reporting of the revenue expenses and debt associated with the project.

M. Karagianis: I am trying to establish here with the minister that this is not about a single project. In fact, the language of the legislation…. Let's be frank. That will be here long after we're here to interpret that for the public. The letter of the law here within this bill says that this is about projects plural, and not about a single project. The Crown corporation is being created to engage in multiple agreements and projects. Is that not true?

Hon. K. Falcon: We have absolutely no plans for any future projects whatsoever. The only project that we'll be applying to this piece of legislation is the Port Mann twinning project. We are writing it and drafting it in such a way — and the legislative drafters are very wise in the work that they do — to ensure that any future government would have the ability to afford themselves the use of this legislation on any future projects they may have.

I know that it causes discomfort for the members opposite, because they voted against this bill, and I realize that they don't support it, but we are very much in support of the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge. This legislation will be very fundamental to allowing that project to go forward in a manner that provides the kind of transparency that the public would demand and expect.

I have given up hope that the members opposite will support the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge, but I know that the vast majority of the public do and are excited to see us proceeding with legislation which will allow us as government to move forward with that project in a way that protects the public interest. That's exactly what this legislation does.

M. Karagianis: You know, our duty here in the Legislature is to approve laws that will sit on the books and be interpreted long after many of us have left here. Looking at the very specific language of this bill — rather than the intention that the minister talks about, which is a project now but certainly could be many in the future — the language within this bill creating a Crown corporation is about a multiple of potential projects in the future. That's what the law says.

I appreciate the minister's interpretation and his political intentions behind this, but the letters and clauses contained within this legal bill that we are creating here say that this Crown corporation is being created to engage in agreements and multiple projects and certainly — by the minister's very clear responses in the initial questioning about the corporation — tolling. Being a tolling authority is a huge component of this.

I'm uncertain as to why the minister does not want to address the actual language contained within this. It does talk about multiple agreements. It does talk about multiple projects. Whether the government has one project now or a dozen is immaterial. I'm looking at why this Crown corporation is being created. It does talk about multiple projects. Is it not technically true that a Crown corporation is being created that will engage in — plural — projects, agreements? Is that not true?

Hon. K. Falcon: Look, Member. I don't know how I can be any more clear about this. We specifically, as I've said on the record, drafted this to allow and not encumber a future government. A future government will have the ability — should it decide it has a future project that would require a toll to be utilized — to benefit, if it chooses, from this legislation which is being put in place for the express purpose of making sure that we will have transparency in the accounting and in the disclosure of information related to the Port Mann project, which is the only toll project that we're doing in British Columbia.

That's why it's called the Port Mann Twinning Act — because that's the project. The reason we're doing that project is so we can, obviously, provide infrastructure for a very important area of the province of British Columbia and for the folks south of the Fraser River who have seen extraordinary population growth and have been saddled with this infrastructure that was built in 1963 and is no longer even coming close to meeting the needs of the people south of the Fraser River.

As we move forward with the Port Mann Bridge project and as we made a decision as government that it would be the right thing to put a toll in place to pay for the cost of the infrastructure improvements in the Port Mann project, we also felt it was important that we set up a special purpose corporation for the Port Mann project that would provide a separate accounting of the revenue and expenses and debts associated with the Port Mann project. The way we did that was by introducing a bill called the Port Mann Twinning Act.

To make it even better for future governments, we made sure we worded it in such a way that did not preclude future governments from utilizing this act. That's why, Member, it does say bridges in the plural. That's specifically why it's written this way. I don't make any apologies for that. It was done on purpose.

I know that the member is going to do verbal gymnastics to try and pretend this has nothing to do with the Port Mann Bridge. But the fact of the matter is that it is the Port Mann Bridge, which is the only toll project that this government is moving forward with. It is a toll project that is the actual title of the bill, the Transportation Investment (Port Mann Twinning) Amendment Act, 2008, so that we will make sure we've got this tolling authority — this special purpose corporation, this Crown corporation — in place at the time at which we enter into a concession agreement with the concessionaire.

I just don't think we can be any clearer. It makes sense to me. It would seem — the member should know that — that it would make sense, as just good governance, that if you're going to go to all the efforts associated with drafting amendments to a significant piece of legislation, as we are doing here…. It might make sense to draft it in such a manner as not to preclude future governments from — should they decide that they've got a project, maybe even similar in nature to the Port Mann Bridge twinning…. They will be able to make use of this legislation and the benefits that are allowed herein.

M. Karagianis: I accept that the minister is talking about one project at the moment that the government has going. But certainly this allows for multiples of projects, and I have no doubt that those will come in the future in some form or another.

I understand the minister is talking about creating a Crown corporation that at the moment has one project in its sights, but certainly nothing in this bill precludes the government from having multiples. You know, it could decide tomorrow that there would be other projects underway here.

I would like to explore, though, in section 2, where it talks about "the corporation agrees to transfer or grant" to the concessionaire one of the following. It can be land, as part of the highway. It can be, as we've established, bridges; culverts; rights to buildings; "shares in any corporation that operates all or any portion of the highway that is, or is to be, the concession highway, or interests in those shares"; and "other interests in, or rights or obligations relating to, the highway referred to in…(i)."

What are the implications of this? Does this mean that the private concessionaires that would engage in one or more agreements with the Crown corporation have full entitlement to all of the things listed within this description? Those would then belong to the private concessionaire — the concession highway, the bridges, walls, tunnels, culverts, rights to buildings, interests, shares in other corporations. Could the minister explain to me what the implications are of that?

Hon. K. Falcon: The description the member talks about is no different than the three previous projects that we've undertaken as concession agreements. Those would be the Sea to Sky Highway, the Kicking Horse Canyon and the William Bennett bridge. It's no different in that what it transfers is interests and rights. It does not transfer ownership. I think it's very important to underscore that.

In fact, for the benefit of the member, if the member goes to subsection 2(3) of the Transportation Investment Act — and I'll read it into the record — it states that: "Despite subsection (1)" — or (1.1) now — "a concession agreement must not transfer a fee simple interest in any land that forms or is to form part of the concession highway."

M. Karagianis: In subsection (iii) of that list it says that "the corporation agrees to transfer or grant to the person designated in the agreement as the concessionaire…shares in any corporation that operates all or any portion of the highway that is, or is to be, the concession highway, or interests in those shares."

Can the minister please explain what that's about? Certainly, I will reflect back on some earlier questions that were asked of him with regard to tolling of other highways that are currently in existence and what the implications are of this clause on that.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised that the section the member refers to, subsection (iii) of (1.1), is put in place

in the event that you were to structure a deal using a different model than the one which we will be utilizing — the Crown corporation model.

Essentially, it would allow the government of the day to set up a separate concessionaire with shares. The bidders would then bid for the right to take over those shares and the rights and interests that go with it.

It's a different model that is allowed. It is not the model that we are utilizing as part of the Crown corporation that we're setting up.

M. Karagianis: Well, the minister may say, "That's what it allows, and we're not going to use it," but in fact, there it is. It's a law that's going to be created, which allows exactly what the minister has just described. That again leads to an earlier question that my colleague, the previous member, asked about — whether or not one concessionaire can sell to another. Can one concessionaire sell shares to another?

Hon. K. Falcon: I go back to the answer I gave to the previous member. I think it's important to point out that in (1.1) it states very clearly, "The minister may, with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, enter into one or more agreements with the corporation or any…person under which the minister agrees, on behalf of the government, to the terms on which the corporation may enter into one or more agreements…." So it requires the approval of the minister and, of course, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which is cabinet or government.

M. Karagianis: So can private interest buy shares? If a concessionaire cannot buy shares, can a private interest buy shares, and how would the government know that?

Hon. K. Falcon: If I understood the member's question correctly, nobody can buy shares in the Transportation Investment Corporation. That is a Crown corporation, shares of which would be held by the government. So those shares aren't available for purchase by any interest.

B. Ralston: Just along the same lines, then, a question. The airport authority, which is not a Crown corporation but is constructed as a separate authority to operate infrastructure and has other business interests, has the right…. Indeed, there was something in the business news just recently about the airport authority selling a portion of its ownership to another private investment firm.

So what the minister is saying is that the only way that kind of a deal could be contemplated would be if there was cabinet approval for such a sale. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Falcon: No, it's a totally different structure than the airport authority. That would not be a good analogy.

I think it's important to point out that the act is very clear that it does not allow us to sell Crown corporation shares in the newly formed Transportation Investment Corporation. It does allow the investment corporation to set up — and that's what the previous member was asking about subsection (3) — a subsidiary with the minister and cabinet's authority. That subsidiary would take the place of a separate concession agreement, which we would be talking about, which we're talking about doing as part of the Port Mann Bridge twinning.

It allows the corporation to set up a subsidiary, and that subsidiary, if I understood my staff correctly, would have the ability to sell shares to whichever the successful winning bidding group was, as opposed to entering into a concession agreement. It's just a different way of achieving the same ends, and it allows that flexibility. That is not the model we're doing in this particular case. It may be a model that some future government may choose to endorse.

B. Ralston: The successful concessionaire will likely hold their interests — the right to receive the toll revenue and operate that part of the concession agreement — in a company. Is there anything in the agreement…? Typically, in these kinds of deals, after the construction phase is finished, there's often an opportunity then to sell the interest that the concessionaire has, because it becomes a fairly predictable investment — a long-term investment with low risk, presumably, and fixed rates of return.

Is there anything in the legislation that would forbid the successful concessionaire who holds those rights in a company from taking that company and selling either all or part of it to another investor? Typically, there are private equity firms that now specialize in infrastructure, for example.

Hon. K. Falcon: The concession agreements that we currently have in place in government — no doubt, it will be the case in the agreement we enter into — now have certain limitations in place to ensure that any purchaser of the shares of a company that is a concessionaire in one of our P3s has the ability to honour the obligations that are set out under the concession agreement.

That would be the same, no doubt, in every agreement that we enter into, but there is nothing that specifically would prohibit a private company from selling shares in that company. But there are limitations in place with reference to the sale of shares in a company that ensure that any purchaser has the ability to maintain the obligations. Those, I think, are typically mirrored by creditor arrangements, too, that will provide the same provisos.

B. Ralston: I want to make sure that I understand this, because I think it's important. In the Abbotsford hospital, after the construction phase is complete, there is a contract which is for 35 years for the operation of the non-clinical services — that is, other than the medical services at the hospital. What I understand is that the right to that contract and the obligations that come with it have been sold now several times already.

I appreciate that the bidding process is ongoing and that the length of time that the concessionaire might hold the right to take the tolls is up for negotiation or is part of the bidding process. Assuming, hypothetically, a 30-year period, is the minister saying that the successful bidder who completes the construction and then wants to sell the rights to take the tolls for 30 years to another party would only be able to do that with the approval of cabinet? Are they forbidden from doing that? Or is there some other mechanism to scrutinize the suitability, or not, of a prospective purchaser?

Hon. K. Falcon: Staff advise me that it's a standard provision in our concession agreements that essentially says that in the event of a sale of shares of the corporation that we've entered into the concession agreement with…. In the event of a sale of their shares to another company, the purchasing company would have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the parties that they have the ability to undertake and maintain the obligations that are set out in the concession agreement. That, I understand, is a standard clause in all of the concession agreements that government enters into.

B. Ralston: Is that to the satisfaction of the corporation? Or is that to the satisfaction of the cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council? Is it one or the other?

Hon. K. Falcon: In this case, obviously, it would be to the satisfaction of the Transportation Investment Corporation, which is being set up to oversee the concession agreement. In prior cases it would be the respective government agency that's entered into the concession agreement.

M. Karagianis: What happens in the case of the government or the corporation itself not approving of the new purchasing partner of the existing concession company?

Hon. K. Falcon: I am advised that if they are unable to demonstrate that they have the capacity, financial or otherwise, to honour the obligations that are set out in the concession agreement, then the agency, or the corporation in this case, would not approve the sale of the shares because they have not demonstrated the capacity necessary to honour the obligations set out in the agreement.

B. Ralston: There is some public concern in the United States and other countries. I think, actually, a sale of part of an airport in New Zealand was vetoed by the government because of a concern of control by what are called state investment corporations. I think the most prominent example is that there were agreements to purchase part of the port facilities in the United States. The firm that was proposing to do that had connections to a single state in the Middle East, and that sale was vetoed.

Are there any restrictions upon sale of the concession agreement — is it contemplated? — to state investment corporations that might not be acceptable to the public or to the government?

Hon. K. Falcon: There are provisions in existing concession agreements that do not allow the sale to what's defined as "unlawful interests." Putting that aside for a second and assuming they're lawful interests, the key test that's being looked at is whether they have the financial capacity as a purchasing agent to honour the obligations that are set out under the concession agreement.

B. Ralston: For example, the People's Republic has a state investment firm. There are different states in the United Arab Emirates or the Middle East where there is some reluctance, certainly in the United States, to contemplate investment by a state investment corporation in key infrastructure.

Is the minister saying that the concession agreements…? I appreciate that we're in the middle of the bidding process, but is it contemplated or is it past practice that a state investment corporation — say, one from the People's Republic of China; not to pick on them, but just to take an example — would be permitted as an investor in a concession if that deal were to be struck?

Hon. K. Falcon: The answer would really come down to whether they were a lawful interest. As long as they're not an unlawful interest and as long as they have the capacity to manage and own up to their obligations as set out under the concession agreement, there would be no restrictions that would be put in place.

I think that the case the member is referring to specifically was a particular national security concern of certain members of Congress in the United States because it referred to a United Arab Emirates company. I think it was Dubai World, if my memory serves me correctly, that was interested in acquiring the operations of one of their ports, and my understanding is that certain members of Congress were concerned about a national security element there. Clearly, in the case of the operation and maintenance of a bridge, I don't think that the same kind of issues would likely surface.

M. Karagianis: In this same section, 2 here, where we're talking about agreements relating to this corporation, subsection (b) talks about highways, so this does contemplate tolled highways. Could the minister say…? For example, would this corporation be used if the oft-promised Cariboo twinning, Highway 97, were determined to be a tolled highway? Would this corporation then cover that?

Hon. K. Falcon: The answer is no. The government has a position and a policy, in fact, that we've put in place — I think it was in 2003 — that sets out several policy requirements that have to be in place prior to the consideration of any kind of tolling. One of them is that there must be a free, easily attainable, non-tolled alternative that's available for the public.

The Cariboo connector would not, obviously, be a candidate for that. It's one of the reasons why the Sea to Sky Highway is also not a tolled highway — because there was no easily available, free, non-tolled alternative that would be available for members of the public to utilize.

M. Karagianis: This would, then, apply to other new highways as long as a second arterial access was available.

Hon. K. Falcon: It may apply, as long as the policy provisions of the government are in place and have been met in terms of the fact that there would be a free, non-tolled alternative available to the public.

B. Ralston: I guess I'm interested in the intersection of the policy that the minister has just spoken of and the rights of a concessionaire who would enter into this kind of an investment. One can easily imagine, certainly in the Lower Mainland, a concessionaire wanting the predictability over the long term of traffic flowing through the tolled bridge in order to have some certainty of revenue.

On the other hand, what are the likely restrictions or proposed restrictions on building, let's say, a new expanded Pattullo or other bridges that would compete with the bridge that the concessionaire has the rights to, thereby in the long run reducing the revenue to the concessionaire such as to make it unpredictable or a money-losing proposition? Surely the concessionaire must be getting some strong assurances from this proposed corporation or from the government that there will not be competing bridges such that all the revenue would disappear because people would use a non-tolled alternative.

I appreciate that that's a little bit of a long-winded question, but I guess I am interested in how the minister reconciles the policy of the non-tolled alternative with the requirement for the concessionaire, who is making a big investment, to have some predictability that 30 or 35 years out they'll be the sole tolled entity and that there won't be undue competition, which would diminish their revenue.

Hon. K. Falcon: The short answer is no, we will not be prohibited from building or adding bridges in the future or from doing improvements or replacements.

The member mentioned, specifically, the Pattullo Bridge. In fact, we are going to be specifically exempting the Pattullo Bridge because that is a bridge, as you know, Member, that I have long encouraged TransLink to deal with, a bridge that was built in 1938. In my view, it requires immediate replacement or plans to deal with the safety issues that are associated with that bridge. I know TransLink is doing some really significant work towards that, but it would not in any way impair the arrangement that we would have with any future concessionaire on the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge.

B. Ralston: Well, I'm happy to hit on something that the minister and I agree on. That's referring to the Pattullo.

Again, it seems counterintuitive that a firm is being asked to make an investment which would give it a stream of revenue from tolls, yet it's open to future governments to build other bridges which would be in competition with that over an extended period of time. I appreciate that the minister is saying that you can't bind future governments, but then that would make the…. One of the attractions of these kinds of infrastructure investments, certainly when it comes to toll revenue, is that you basically have a monopoly on the traffic. You can make a traffic count. You know what that traffic count is, and you project it out into the future.

If the minister is saying that there's no restriction on future governments building any number of bridges over the Fraser or at any point, what's the incentive to make the investment, and where is the predictability for the investor?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think that really, it comes down to investors that invest in these kinds of infrastructure projects also being people that can take a good look at the Lower Mainland and realize that…. Where else would you put a bridge, for example? So if the Pattullo, for example, is replaced, as both you and I hope it will be one day…. If you look around the Lower Mainland, you don't have a lot of options for adding bridges, certainly not options that are particularly viable.

The member will know well, given the difficulty of getting any major infrastructure projects approved in the Lower Mainland, that should you actually think of an alternative location, each of them would have all its own joyous challenges to no doubt overcome.

I also think it's important to recognize that there's a Golden Ears bridge under construction as we speak. It is a TransLink project, but it is also a toll project that is connecting across the Fraser River — connecting the northeast sector, Pitt Meadows–Maple Ridge, with the Surrey-Langley communities — which the investors are no doubt very aware of. I think that once you twin the Port Mann Bridge, once you have the Golden Ears bridge open and once you get either a renovated or replaced Pattullo Bridge, you are probably, for that whole area, pretty much bridged out, at least as far as the term of the concession agreement would likely last.

M. Karagianis: I would like to ask the minister some questions about part (c), then, under this same section. So it says here, again, that "the concessionaire may undertake to do one or more of develop, plan, design, construct, expand, extend, upgrade, remove or rehabilitate all or part of the highway referred to" in part (a) as one of the many things that might be undertaken by a concessionaire.

How does the tolling apply to that? And what are the implications of all of that, given the minister's previous comments about why the Crown corporation is being created?

Hon. K. Falcon: This refers to the concessionaire that the Transportation Investment Corporation, which is contemplated under this act, would enter into. It is a permissive paragraph, so it undertakes, to the extent that these are the things that the concessionaire may be responsible…. That's why it says "may undertake to do one or more of…." It sort of describes some of those things. Those specific issues that the concessionaire will be responsible for undertaking will actually be laid out in the concession agreement, a concession agreement that will be approved by myself as minister and by cabinet as government.

M. Karagianis: Thank you very much, but can the minister explain what the difference is in this particular case between any of the other concession agreements that the government is currently engaged in?

M. Karagianis: Section 3 talks about amending the section regarding mandatory provisions of the concession agreement. Could the minister explain to me what the actual implications of this amending of the mandatory provisions are?

Hon. K. Falcon: The existing act's mandatory provisions that are to be set out, and that are set out under the act, are also required to be set out under any agreement between the Transportation Investment Corporation and the concessionaire. So it's just stating that whatever mandatory provisions are there under the existing act are also going to be required under any agreement entered into by the corporation and any concessionaire.

M. Karagianis: The special emphasis under subsection (d) there: "in paragraph (c.1) by adding the following subparagraph: (iii) payment to the government or any other contracting party of an amount or amounts based on tolls…."

Can the minister explain why that particular language is being included? There does seem to be payment directly to government or another contracting party. What does that actually mean?

Hon. K. Falcon: What it says is that the payment will be to the government — i.e., our government or any government — or any other contracting party, which would be the Transportation Investment Corporation that we are going to be setting up as part of this act. In other words, the toll revenues must be paid to the government or to the Transportation Investment Corporation being set up by government.

M. Karagianis: But it was my understanding from the minister's earlier comments that this corporation is being created specifically in order to be the authority over the tolling so that the tolls will go to the corporation and therefore be publicly accountable. Under what circumstances would the tolls bypass the corporation?

Hon. K. Falcon: Really, all this line is doing, which is consistent with the whole point of the bill, is saying that the toll revenue payments will be made to government or any other contracting party — which is the Transportation Investment Corporation — of whatever the amounts are, based on the toll revenue.

It's simply saying that government can take the toll revenue directly or that it can, as we are in this case, set up a transportation investment corporation that the toll revenues will be required to be paid to. That's all it's saying. It's a permissive thing that's allowing the payments to be made to the Crown corporation we're setting up.

M. Karagianis: I think we established earlier that this is a choice that the government is making — to set up this Crown corporation. But really, by the language within this very subclause here, the tolls could go directly to government.

In fact, the minister said that there was a problem with tolls going directly to government, because there was no capacity to be totally accountable and auditable, and they would somehow disappear into general revenue. Yet it says right here that the payments could go to government — negating, really, the purpose for this Crown corporation in the first place.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is only correct to the extent that that's how the legislative drafters draft legislation — to make sure that we don't foreclose options for a future government that may have a different way or may have thought of a different way of dealing with this issue.

It is this government's opinion, based on the experience right around the world and certainly across North America, that when entering into a tolling arrangement on a concession agreement where there is a visible toll that will be paid in part to defray the cost of building the infrastructure…. The best way to move forward in a case like that is to ensure that you've got a separate corporation that will, in a very transparent way, set out what the revenues, expenses and debt obligations associated with that project are.

We happen to believe that that's the right way to go and that is the transparent way to go. That's why we're doing it. That's why we're setting up this corporation, and that's why we're amending the act.

Again, as I said earlier on to questions from the member opposite and her colleague, we don't make any apology for the fact that it's written in such a way as to be permissive for a future government. We are not closing the door for a future government to try and do something differently. I would disagree with that.

I am on the record very, very clearly and very repetitively on this issue. Where government is going to be collecting a toll, I think it's very important for the public to know exactly what's happening to those toll revenues and exactly what the paydown is on the debt obligations associated with building that infrastructure so that there can be real clarity in terms of when this thing is paid off and when the obligation is concluded.

M. Karagianis: But it could go directly to government. The tolls could go directly to government — could they not?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, Member, I've always said that. Yeah, if you wanted to, you could. I hope the member opposite isn't advocating that. I think that would be very unfair to the public, because then the public would have no opportunity to determine what the actual revenues and expenses are and the debt associated with that particular project, or they would have to be a financial sleuth of the highest order in order to figure that out. We don't believe that should be the way you deal with something like this, for the public.

We think it's better to set up a stand-alone Crown corporation, a special purpose entity whose only function is to oversee the concession agreement and to ensure that the reporting-out of any revenues it receives from toll revenues and expenses associated with it and the debt obligations associated with those infrastructure investments are separately laid out for the purview and review of the public. It also allows them to issue financial annual statements that are independently audited, and we believe that is far more transparent than what I suggest….

No, I shouldn't suggest that, because I don't believe the member is suggesting we should do it the alternative way, though the question may imply that. I do think that doing it the alternative way would be the wrong way to do it, because it would be inconsistent, in my view, with the kind of transparency and clarity that you want to see if you're entering into an arrangement where you're going to build infrastructure using toll revenue.

As W.A.C. Bennett recognized in the late '50s and early '60s, when he invested in major infrastructure upgrades that were financed by tolls…. He recognized the importance of setting up a tolling authority that would separately account for the revenues that were generated and the expenses and obligations that were assumed as part of those infrastructure investments.

I think that was the right model then. I still think it's the right model today. That's why, as we contemplate and are moving forward on a very important project — the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and the associated tolling that will go along with that — we follow that practice that is utilized not only historically here in British Columbia but across North America and around the world to ensure there is that transparency.

That's part of the job of legislative drafters — to make sure you've got legislation written in such a way that it affords flexibility for future governments to do whatever it is future governments wish to do. I have no argument with that. I think that's the right way to draft legislation.

The position of this government is very clear. We believe a special purpose corporation needs to be put in place for the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge. That's why the only toll project we have in the province of British Columbia is the Port Mann Bridge, and that's why the act is in fact called the Port Mann Bridge twinning act.

M. Karagianis: Section 5 amends the Transportation Investment Act to add rights, powers and obligations with respect to the corporation. I'd like to ask a few questions on this. It says, first and foremost…. There have been some subsections here about delegating rights, powers, authorities and functions to the corporation. It says in the first one, (3.1), that the corporation may, in a concession agreement, delegate to the concessionaire all of the same rights, powers and functions.

Can the minister explain exactly to what extent those powers will be given to the concessionaire?

Hon. K. Falcon: These powers to delegate to the concessionaire already exist under the act. All this provision is doing is allowing the minister to delegate those powers on behalf of government to the Transportation Investment Corporation, which in turn can delegate them to the concessionaire. So it is not a new power; it is the same power. It's just allowing that to be delegated to the special purpose corporation that's being set up so that they in turn will have that ability to delegate them to the concessionaire.

M. Karagianis: It's important, the way the minister answered that, because in the next subsection of (4.1) it says that obligations on the corporation can be passed down to the concession agreement and that the corporation is then relieved from those obligations in relation to the concession highway.

This particular section, as the minister said, is kind of outlining how the concessionaire is responsible — what their responsibilities are. So the corporation can then delegate to the concessionaire. The corporation is relieved from the obligations in relation to the concession highway.

Minister, we have many conversations in this House about the role of Crown corporations and the responsibility, direct or otherwise, that government takes for their behaviours.

I'm concerned that if the corporation is relieved from their obligations…. Does this mean that government will turn over powers and rights and authorities to this corporation, who will then give them to the concessionaire when things don't go well? The public will come back, and the government will say: "Well, it's the corporation doing this, not us." Much like our school

boards or health authorities, the government suddenly says: "We have no control over how that concessionaire or that corporation is behaving. It's not up to us. Those are decisions that are made by that corporation and powers and functions that are given to that concessionaire, and we have no authority over them."

Hon. K. Falcon: No, that's not the case at all. I think the member should know that these mirror exactly what's in the act now. If you look at subsection (4.1)(a), where it says that the minister is relieved from those obligations in relation to the concession highway, it is simply mirroring that and transferring that ability over to the Transportation Investment Corporation.

We are setting up a special purpose corporation for the purpose of building and constructing, in this case, the Port Mann Bridge. All it is doing is reflecting the provision that is already in place under the existing Transportation Investment Act but recognizing that there's now a special purpose corporation that is going to be in place to oversee and manage the concession agreement.

M. Karagianis: But could this corporation be interpreted as acting in the same way as health authorities or school districts, all creatures of the government as well? This is a corporation that's a firewall between the concessionaire and government itself, is it not?

Hon. K. Falcon: This is the beginning of issues around liability associated with entering into agreements, and there will be more as we go through this act.

Primarily, what it is saying is that if there is negligence on the part of the concessionaire, the concessionaire will be solely responsible for that negligence. That, of course, protects the interests of the taxpayer, because the whole purpose of entering into these kinds of private-public partnership arrangements is that we are transferring risks from what has traditionally been held by the taxpayer over to a concessionaire or in this case to the private sector in the form of a concessionaire. The concessionaire will be required to have liability insurance in place, etc., to make sure that it has the ability to meet the obligations set out under the act and any negligence that may flow from that.

This is an important provision, because we want to be able to impose those obligations on the concessionaire. This is allowing us to do so through the special purpose corporation that will be set up and will enter into the agreement with the concessionaire and manage the agreement with the concessionaire.

M. Karagianis: Certainly, negligence is really at the heart of this, and that's the purpose of my questions here. It does talk here about delegating powers and functions for a concession highway to the concessionaire. I think the minister very rightfully has hit on something here around negligence.

Does the minister believe that the government of this province would be prevented from taking responsibility for negligence for something that a contractor to it, through this corporation or not, is responsible for? Is the minister saying that the government would bear no responsibility for negligence?

This Crown corporation, as the minister has very clearly outlined, is being overseen by the minister. They will do nothing without the minister's approval, whether it's building a highway or building a bridge. They will take no action without the minister's oversight. A concessionaire that's building any of these highway infrastructures then has to report back to the corporation.

Is the minister saying that if there is a case of negligence in something that was constructed by the concessionaire under this Crown corporation, the government would not be liable for negligence? I don't believe there's a case anywhere that would say the government would not be responsible, but perhaps the minister knows better than me.

Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate the member asking that question, because that's exactly why it's being put into law. I would hope that the member will stand up and celebrate the fact that this is now being done, because it does exactly what the member says. It makes sure that it is the obligation of the concessionaire — not the taxpayer, not government. That's why it's specifically being laid out in this act as part of an amendment — to ensure that that is in fact the case.

Herein, I think, is where so often we part ways with the NDP on issues like this. This government believes that we need to be protecting the taxpayer — that the taxpayer should not be the one that's always first on the list to take the financial hit if something goes wrong, if there's negligence as a result of improvements or works that are being undertaken. And it's why I believe, the $8 billion worth of private-public partnerships undertaken by this government, representing 24 different projects, have all been characterized by the fact that they've been delivered on or ahead of schedule and on or under budget.

That is a stark contrast to the method of procurement that the members opposite and the NDP favour, which is having government try and build all these major complex projects and having government and taxpayers assume all of the associated risk.

I know that the member will applaud this and will see it as an important step forward to protecting the taxpayers. Having said that, I rather suspect I won't hear that applause, but I am always an optimistic person.

M. Karagianis: It's unfortunate that the minister continues to politicize what I believe are straightforward questions about a law that he's creating and a new Crown corporation that's being created here. If the minister wants to constantly sort of politicize this discussion, that's fine, but I think these are legitimate questions that the taxpayers of British Columbia would like to know.

The minister is creating a Crown corporation to build future infrastructure, tolling highways and

bridges, and the minister believes that somehow he can delegate responsibility for any negligence that comes out of that to a Crown corporation rather than take responsibility himself.

I think the minister has established that the minister will ultimately be the person responsible for the oversight of this Crown corporation — its actions, its agreements, its concession agreements and the business carried out by its concessionaire. I would be stunned to believe that for one minute the corporation would be the one that takes the responsibility for negligence on behalf of the concessionaire.

The concessionaire is going to have responsibility here for all kinds of infrastructure — highways, bridges, buildings, maintenance, upkeep and all of that — and if there is a tragedy as a result of that, the corporation and thereby the person and the government providing oversight….

The minister has been very careful to say that nothing will take place in this corporation that does not directly have his approval and oversight. So how can the minister possibly say that the corporation would be relieved of obligations to the public in the case of negligence on behalf of the concessionaire?

Hon. K. Falcon: I hear some chattering from the opposition benches. I'm trying to provide an answer for the members of the opposition that will be clear enough and understandable enough that they will not have to keep asking questions along the same line. So I try to simplify these things as much as we can.

The fact of the matter is that if the Transportation Investment Corporation transfers an obligation to the concessionaire, they — the concessionaire — are fully responsible for fulfilling that obligation. Now, not only are they fully responsible for fulfilling that obligation — and that's why it is set out so clearly in the legislation and the law — but they will be required to provide liability insurance to backstop their requirement to fulfil that obligation.

This is not a negative thing; this is a positive thing. This is so they don't have any ability to point fingers and try and suggest that they shouldn't be held responsible. They build an overpass, and that overpass…. Say it's discovered upon review that it's got some structural problems or deficiencies, or what have you. They don't get to point fingers. They don't get to say, "Well, actually, government, it should be your fault," or anyone else's fault. It is their obligation. This act makes it clear. They are responsible. They need to fix that problem. They will have to fix that problem. They will have to have liability insurance to make sure that that problem gets fixed.

Once again, why do we do this? We do this because we are a government that is trying to protect the interests of the taxpayer so that the taxpayer isn't always the one that gets dragged into this and has to fix the problems that are associated sometimes with very large, complex projects. It is not politicizing it, Member, to talk about how a minister of the Crown wonders how the opposition could be offended by a prospect that protects the taxpayer, unless it's just a misunderstanding.

Maybe the member is misunderstanding what she's reading or misunderstanding the section of the act. But it's pretty clear to me that if we're transferring an obligation onto a concessionaire, somebody that's going to be responsible for building major infrastructure and managing that process of building that major infrastructure….

I don't see why it would offend the members opposite that we would make sure they know that that is an obligation we will hold them to, that we were going to require them at law to know they will be responsible for fulfilling those obligations and that they were going to be required to have the insurance to backstop that commitment to fulfil that obligation. That's actually good news.

I don't know how I can explain it any clearer for the member. But if the member wants me to try and do so, I will try and do so.

M. Karagianis: This is actually a partner question to the previous section 5, which talked about the corporation being relieved of its obligations. This talks about limiting the liability of the corporation. Will this hold up in a court of law?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, that's exactly why we're putting this into law. It hasn't always been clear to the courts. By putting it into law we are hopefully making it more clear to the courts that we are essentially saying in here that the corporation we are setting up — the special purpose corporation, the Transportation Investment Corporation — will be relieved of liability where they have transferred that liability and imposed that obligation onto the concessionaire.

We are making that explicit because we want to be explicit as lawmakers about what our intent is. Our intent is that those obligations will be shouldered by the concessionaire. They will not be shouldered by the Crown or, subsequently, the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Again, I think that is a very positive step forward. It's part of, as I said, a series of issues that are going to be outlined in this act that ensure that the taxpayer and the public are going to be protected from being the ones that are going to be having to deal with obligations that have been transferred to a concessionaire in a concession agreement.

M. Karagianis: I do know that the language in here talks about how the corporation would protect itself from any liability arising from operation of the highway by the concessionaire and talks about how no legal proceeding for damages or compensation of any kind lies with the corporation. But is that realistic, Minister? If there is a tragedy on a highway that is being owned and operated and tolled by a private concessionaire, is

it the expectation of the minister that the injured party would not jointly sue both the concessionaire and the government?

Hon. K. Falcon: The provisions here parallel the existing provisions in the Transportation Investment Act that provide those kinds of protections to government. All we're doing here is allowing the Transportation Investment Corporation to have the benefit of those same protections.

The Transportation Investment Corporation is being set up by government as a special purpose corporation. We are making sure that the provisions that currently exist under the act, which provide certain protections towards government, are also going to be provided to the Transportation Investment Corporation and that when the Transportation Investment Corporation then delegates obligations to a concessionaire under a concession agreement, that concessionaire is going to be held accountable for those obligations that are transferred to the concessionaire. That is what section 6 is helping to clarify.

M. Karagianis: Section 7 talks about the rights of the parties regarding termination of a concession agreement. It talks about "the interest, rights and shares transferred or granted to the concessionaire vest in the corporation," not in government. We're specifically removing the language around the rights and shares no longer vesting in government.

I hark back to the earlier discussion we had under section 3, where payment of tolls can go to either government or the corporation. I'm curious as to why we are removing the fact that the rights and shares and interests in the case of a termination of a concession agreement…. Why is that not going to either the corporation or the government, much as the tolls are?

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, this amendment is similar to the existing provision that we have in the Transportation Investment Act that essentially says that where there's a concession agreement between the Minister of Transportation and a concessionaire that is terminated, the rights, shares, etc., vest back to the government. In this case we now have a special purpose Crown corporation which is an agent of the Crown. Therefore, if the agent of the Crown enters into a concession agreement that for whatever reason is terminated, then that interest reverts to the Crown corporation, which is an agent of the Crown.

M. Karagianis: Section 16 has part 4.1 added to it, which is an extensive part. This is really around establishing the purposes and powers of the corporation. I know we did explore that early on under the first section, where we talked about the definitions. I do just want to clarify here, under this corporation that's being created, the establishment of it: can the minister tell us what the costs are going to be of creating this new Crown corporation?

Hon. K. Falcon: The costs of setting up the corporation are going to be very modest. The directors are…. As I said in my second reading speech, the board members will likely be deputy ministers or their equivalent, perhaps ADMs, that will form the board of the corporation. The president of the corporation is likely to be the Port Mann Bridge project director. It's possible that the project team will be engaged by the Crown corporation to provide services or what have you, but we anticipate that the costs will be very modest.

Hon. K. Falcon: There will be some incorporation and audit costs associated with a Crown corporation, which are pretty standard. We anticipate that they…. In fact, they almost certainly will be sharing office space, for example, with the project team, so there won't be any incremental additional office costs, etc. They will utilize the space that will be available for the project team.

M. Karagianis: It says here, "The purposes of the corporation are to engage in and conduct business related to…delivering, managing, operating, tolling or funding transportation projects," including concession agreements. All of these tasks will be undertaken by this board of directors, which is made up of deputy ministers and some specific management person. Is that what the minister is saying — that there will be no other additional personnel required to do all of these tasks for all of the projects in the future?

Hon. K. Falcon: As the member would know, there is a project team that is involved in undertaking major projects like this. There will be a project team for the Port Mann Bridge twinning project specifically. As I mentioned in my earlier answer, the Crown corporation that we will be setting up, which will likely be made up of a board of deputy ministers or equivalents, will likely engage the services of that project team to help them do exactly what is outlined under 24.22(a).

M. Karagianis: I know that the minister is talking about the first project. But certainly the corporation is being created with very broad expectations and powers and duties. The remainder of this, as we go into 24.23, lays out that this corporation can "acquire, construct,

hold or improve transportation infrastructure or cause it to be acquired, constructed, held or improved." It can "acquire, hold or dispose of land, including interest in land."

With the approval of the minister, it's going to borrow money. With the approval of the minister, it's going to enter into agreements with other governments. It may acquire or create a subsidiary. These are fairly broad expectations of this.

In the setting up of this Crown corporation, are there going to be no other costs for business letterhead, for business cards, for a structure here that is going to be engaged in borrowing money, in disposing of land, in creating infrastructure? I mean, this is a lot of work that this Crown corporation is engaged in. Can the minister explain to us, in creating a new body of government, what the long-term costs and operating costs are going to be?

Hon. K. Falcon: Certainly, there will be some incremental costs associated with letterhead and cards or whatever things that the member pointed out, but we expect those to be very modest.

M. Karagianis: In subsection 24.23 it does talk about acquiring and creating a subsidiary. Could the minister explain to me what kind of subsidiary this Crown corporation would need to create, and whether it's more than one? It also talks about acquiring a subsidiary. What would those be?

Hon. K. Falcon: That goes back to our earlier discussion. If you were thinking of delivering the project utilizing a different model than the one we're utilizing, it allows for that subsidiary corporation to be set up.

That's not how we are proceeding with this particular project, but as I mentioned, the legislation and the drafting of the legislation generally is permissive so that it doesn't preclude future governments from considering other options.

M. Karagianis: Again, under section 16, as we move down through the governance of the corporation, that's very specifically laid out. It's very similar to other Crown corporations that have been created in the past and not dissimilar to the TransLink model that was created.

It does say here that the corporation would "pay to a director remuneration and expense allowances at rates set by the minister." Yet the minister has said that there would be no remuneration per se. Maybe he could just clarify why this is included in this legislation if in fact there is none intended.

Hon. K. Falcon: As is consistent with so much of the act, the section is permissive. It does allow it, should the government of the day decide that that's something it wants to do.

As I've said on the record, we will not be paying board remuneration in this case. This is a Crown corporation of which the board will be made up primarily of deputy ministers or their equivalent in government. It is a Crown corporation that is an agent of the Crown to specifically oversee a concession agreement and ensure the building and construction of the Port Mann Bridge for the benefit of the people of the Lower Mainland and the province of British Columbia.

M. Karagianis: It begs the question why you've created a Crown corporation and an entire bill here that the government has no intention of actually using.

If the minister is right, there is no need for all of this Crown corporation to be created here, which involves outlaying very broad powers, very broad duties. It outlines very specifically that directors are to be appointed, that remuneration is to be paid, that the board must meet four times a year. The board has a fiduciary duty to the corporation, not to the taxpayers of British Columbia. Certainly, it says here, further, on that the chief executive officer of the corporation must be appointed by the board.

This has very complex directions to be given to this Crown corporation. Is the minister saying that it's not the government's intention to utilize any of the tools that have been put into this Crown corporation and not to follow any of these pages and pages of directives that have been set out on how the Crown corporation will behave?

Hon. K. Falcon: Some of these are requirements. Some of these are permissive. It's largely boilerplate language. Virtually every Crown corporation has a board. Virtually every Crown corporation board appoints its president. So there's nothing new here.

In terms of the ability of the board to act in the areas that they're required to act in, this is an agent of the Crown. This is a Crown corporation, an agent of government, of the Crown, that will act to enter into a concession arrangement and build a very important piece of infrastructure for the province of British Columbia.

Most of this language is boilerplate. It's typical language that one would find in the setting up of a Crown corporation. There's nothing unusual about the permissive nature of some of it.

It says that the government may choose to pay remuneration and expense allowance at rates set by the minister. The minister will be held accountable for those decisions. I've already said publicly that we will not be paying remuneration to the board, and I've said that again in this House. Obviously, expense allowances will likely be consistent with the expense allowance provisions of the government of British Columbia.

B. Ralston: Looking at subsection 24.35(1), "The board must appoint a person as the chief executive officer of the corporation," what the minister is saying, then, is that the intention is to create a paper CEO. There's no intention that this person would have any real powers to operate or direct the affairs of the corporation.

Hon. K. Falcon: The corporation board, of course, has the authority to appoint the president, as is the case in, I think, every Crown corporation that I'm familiar with. That person, as I mentioned before, will likely be

the project director for the Port Mann Bridge project. That position will most likely not involve additional resources.

B. Ralston: So the board must appoint a person. It will be as I said, then, that it will be a person on paper. That will be, as the minister contemplates it now, the project manager of the ongoing project rather than…. This person won't be a CEO in the usual sense that one understands the CEO of a corporation.

Hon. K. Falcon: That's not quite what I said. The CEO will have the powers that are contemplated and spelled out in the legislation. As I said, the CEO will likely be the project director. That would make an enormous amount of sense.

I think we have to recognize that this is a Crown corporation we are talking about, a Crown corporation which will be acting as an agent of the Crown in entering into a concession arrangement that will result in the construction of a new Port Mann Bridge or a twinned Port Mann Bridge, whichever is the case, and improvements to the Trans-Canada Highway and interchanges from Vancouver to Langley. I don't know if I can be any more clear than that.

M. Karagianis: I'm glad to hear that the minister is talking about highway as well. So this Crown corporation will also engage in the highway construction, as he's just stated.

It says here that the chief executive officer will be appointed by the board. I know that the minister has talked now about a bridge and he has talked about a highway. Will this CEO be in place in the corporation for projects beyond the ones that have been mentioned here, which are a bridge and a highway?

Hon. K. Falcon: The question is: would the CEO…? Once the board determines who that individual will be — as I mentioned, likely the project director for the Port Mann project — would that person handle projects in the future? That will obviously be determined in the future. I have no way of knowing whether that same individual would deal with a future project, a totally separate project.

I think it's important for the member to know that the project definition itself is…. All of that information is contained on the Web. It's publicly available in terms of the scope of the project and the project definition itself. But, as I say, this is a project for building the Port Mann Bridge and the related infrastructure improvements. This Crown corporation is being set up specifically as a special purpose corporation to allow that project to move forward.

The president that the board hires will be a decision the board will make, but as I've indicated, it's likely that that individual will be the project director. That would only make sense. The whole point of this legislation is to allow us to move forward with the construction and building of the Port Mann Bridge project and the related infrastructure.

M. Karagianis: The Crown corporation — we've clearly defined what its initial project will be, and I guess we'll have to see what else exists beyond that.

The minister commented before that this was boilerplate language for this. Can the minister tell me whether the conflict-of-interest guidelines that have been outlined here are similar to the TransLink board conflict-of-interest guidelines?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think the member is confusing this — TransLink as a Crown corporation. TransLink is not a Crown corporation. I've gone over this in painstaking detail with the member in the past. It is an independent authority. It is not an agent of the Crown. It is not a Crown corporation. It is fully independent of the province of British Columbia. This is a Crown corporation, and the provisions of conflict of interest that apply to Crown corporations are generally laid out in here. They're generally similar to the conflict-of-interest provisions that apply to other Crown corporations in the province.

M. Karagianis: The minister was very specific about saying these were generally similar to the normal conflict-of-interest guidelines. What is different about these if they are not identical to the other conflict-of-interest guidelines in other Crown corporations?

Hon. K. Falcon: The reason that I used the word "generally" is because the conflict-of-interest provisions periodically get updated. This is the state-of-the-art, the latest version of language that's utilized for conflict of interest. If the member goes and checks these conflict-of-interest provisions with earlier conflict-of-interest provisions, the primary difference, she will see, is that there is more emphasis on disclosure of potential conflicts and, once disclosure of potential conflicts are made, how those must be resolved.

Aside from that, the changes, I'm advised by staff, are very minimal — nothing substantive that would concern the member in terms of conflict of interest and how it's applied. That's my understanding.

M. Karagianis: I know that the minister outlined that this would be deputy ministers, primarily, sitting on this board. But is it contemplated that there would be persons other than civil servants participating on this board or sitting on this board?

Hon. K. Falcon: I move we rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 14, Transportation Investment (Port Mann Twinning) Amendment Act, 2008, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 18; K. Whittred in the chair.

S. Simpson: Hon. Chair, I wonder if the minister could confirm that this bill — Bill 18, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act — is intended primarily to enable the government to be a participant in the western climate initiative.

S. Simpson: Absolutely, hon. Chair. Could the minister confirm that the purpose for Bill 18, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act, is to allow the government to operationalize its participation in the western climate initiative?

Hon. B. Penner: That would be one of the results of this legislation. It would enable us to enter into formal agreement or a trading arrangement with the western climate initiative. Generally speaking, the legislation does what the name suggests, which is that it enables us to enter into a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

S. Simpson: Then could the minister tell the House: is he contemplating another cap-and-trade system, other than the WCI process that's in negotiation now?

Hon. B. Penner: There have been some media reports that other provinces were thinking about working on a bilateral arrangement — between Quebec and Ontario, I think — in terms of a cap-and-trade system. But we're pursuing the WCI, as the member knows.

We have taken the position that it's better to have a market that includes a number of jurisdictions, a number of partners, rather than just one jurisdiction. Some other governments may have a different view on that, but we think that it makes sense to partner with other jurisdictions so that we can build a bigger market and seek the efficiencies that arise from a bigger market.

S. Simpson: The minister's first answer was WCI, but not necessarily WCI. Am I to assume here, following on this answer, that the minister is saying that it could be something else but that the government is not contemplating any systems other than what's being worked on through WCI now? That is what the government is contemplating its partnership in — WCI?

Hon. B. Penner: This bill, if passed, would enable us to enter into a different type of arrangement — with other provinces, perhaps. But that's not what we're contemplating. We are putting our efforts behind the western climate initiative.

We believe that cap-and-trade provides for a low-cost way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, providing flexibility for industry to meet the reduction targets. The member knows that we have passed into law a 33 percent reduction target by 2020.

That is a very significant reduction target, so we are looking for ways we can achieve that objective while still maintaining our quality of life and while providing for economic vitality and opportunity in British Columbia so that we can maintain the important social programs and services that that economy supports.

S. Simpson: Just one question related to that before we move on to specifics of definitions. Could the minister tell us what the anticipated…? I understand that things can change, but based on the current schedules around the WCI, what is the anticipated implementation period for Bill 18?

Hon. B. Penner: No specific date has been established at this point, but we are working closely with our WCI partners. The member will be aware that there is a meeting taking place tomorrow in Salt Lake City, where some draft recommendations from the five subgroups that have been meeting will be presented. In fact, I think those documents were made available last week through the WCI website, which you can link to from our climate action website hosted by the B.C. government.

That's still a work-in-progress. The objective is to have the rough outline complete and agreed to by August. There'll obviously be some detail work required as a follow-up to that, but that's the time line we're working to.

S. Simpson: Then just to confirm — there was no requirement of membership in the WCI for this legislation to be brought at this time? There was no requirement, then, for example — and the minister can correct the dates — that by the end of this calendar year there would be enabling legislation in place or other legislation that would allow the WCI to be put in place? There was no requirement to partnership in the WCI for that to occur. Would that be accurate?

S. Simpson: I find that interesting. I know that the minister has at different times made comments in relation to this legislation when we have raised concerns about the enabling nature of the legislation without substantive content as part of the package. The minister has expressed the need to move forward, to move quickly. That seems to be a little inconsistent with the minister saying: "There is no requirement around enabling legislation to allow this."

Further, as the minister…. And I've read the draft design recommendations on the cap-and-trade program as provided by the WCI, and they certainly don't seem to have any of those requirements as they move forward. They seem to be noting that there's a significant amount of work to be done following the resolution of the recommendations at some point later this year.

But having said that, I'll move on to the definitions in part 1, "Definitions." Could the minister explain what an "accepted emission reduction project" is?

Hon. B. Penner: As the member notes, there's a definition there in the definitions section, but a more fulsome scoping is provided in section 9, where it talks about emission reduction projects that can do things like "reducing or avoiding greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere," "removing greenhouse gas from the atmosphere," etc.

Just to go back to the member's previous question. He asked me if there was a requirement in terms of being a member of the WCI to bring forward legislation by a specific date. The answer I gave is correct. There is not a specific date required by virtue of membership in the WCI.

However, a number of WCI members — namely California and, more recently, Washington State — in their recently concluded spring section, have already introduced legislation to give them the authority to establish a cap-and-trade system. British Columbia feels that it's appropriate to do this as well, as a sign of good faith and to show continued progress and momentum towards the establishment of a cap-and-trade system.

Further, in discussions with federal officials around equivalency agreements, they quite rightly want to know for sure that the province of British Columbia is pursuing something equivalent, something that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By bringing forward legislation to establish a cap-and-trade system, that provides the federal officials with a greater degree of certainty that British Columbia is serious about putting in place mechanisms to achieve greenhouse gas reductions.

S. Simpson: When we get to that area, I'll be looking forward to having some discussion about Bill AB 32, which is California's enabling legislation. I've had the opportunity to look at that and to compare that to British Columbia and have some discussion about some of the differences between those two bills. I'm sure the minister will enlighten me on that.

Getting back to the question about accepted emission reduction projects. It says: "…a project that has been accepted by the director in accordance with section 9…." Could the minister tell us: who could bring forward such a project, an accepted emissions reduction project? How might they do that? And is it a voluntary thing?

Hon. B. Penner: Any individual could put forward a project, but it would have to be located in British Columbia. Perhaps an example that I could give the member is if a first nations band brought forward a project that sought to displace a diesel generator for a remote community with some alternative form of electricity that had a lower greenhouse gas emission profile. That could be a project that would qualify if it was something that wasn't already being done.

So a project, in order to qualify, would have to be incremental or in addition to something that's already been regulated or required to have been done. For example, we're setting up the cap-and-trade system, so it would have to be something that would be in addition to the emissions reductions that someone was already having to achieve.

S. Simpson: Projects that would be accepted emission reduction projects, as defined by this particular definition…. I see a bit of that when I read section 9, which the minister referred to, where it speaks about how these projects may come forward, not that they shall come forward. So those projects that are accepted emission reduction projects are voluntary in nature. They are not compulsory in nature. Is that correct?

S. Simpson: We'll talk about this some more when we get to section 9. Moving on to another definition, administrative penalties. Could the minister tell us and define for us what an administrative penalty is as it relates to other forms of penalties?

Hon. B. Penner: The concept of administrative penalties originated, I think, in the United States. It's actually a system whereby public servants can impose a certain prescribed penalty that has already been identified in advance for certain forms of non-compliance.

They are appealable. In the case of British Columbia it would be to the Environmental Appeal Board, if this legislation is passed. But it is an attempt to have a quicker resolution to disputes or disagreements about non-compliance — and as a mechanism, hopefully, of accomplishing a stronger signal to an entity that's not in compliance — than waiting for the court system to take its time. We all know that it sometimes takes a while for things to work through the court system.

Administrative penalties can be monetary in nature, or they can take the form of a requirement to do a certain thing — so in the context of this legislation, to retire a number of the allowance units.

S. Simpson: I thank the minister for that. When we get to the section on administrative penalties, part 6, section 17, we will discuss those in some more detail.

Just to clarify an issue around the administrative penalties, we see that part 8, I believe, commences the section on offences and penalties, whereas it is part 6 that talks about administrative penalties. Could the minister tell us a little bit about what the differences are, in terms of how they're applied and what they might be in terms of the severity of the penalties, between an administrative penalty and an offence or a penalty under part 8?

Hon. B. Penner: The intention with administrative penalties would be to set them so that they'd be roughly in alignment with what our neighbouring jurisdictions are doing with the WCI. My understanding is that they have not yet determined the amount of the administrative penalties for their jurisdiction, so we'll likely have some conversations with our partners in the WCI before we do that.

In terms of the offence penalties, you'll see in the act that the maximum penalty ranges up to $1 million. That's consistent with some other offences under the Environmental Management Act, but it's also worth noting that it's roughly equivalent to maximum penalties under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. That's the federal legislation.

Again, one thing we're always trying to keep an eye on is making sure that we have the ability to enter into equivalency agreements with the federal government for whatever kind of regulatory regime they hope to impose.

S. Simpson: I think one more question around the penalties, just to continue to understand what an administrative penalty is. The minister's comments are helpful. Could the minister explain, just to better understand what an administrative penalty is, how and when an administrative penalty might be applied versus a penalty, an offence, under part 8? The minister referenced that offences under part 8 could be as much as a million dollars. I believe that was his comment, or that was a number he put out there — that that's the possibility. Could the minister tell us whether he has any idea what an administrative penalty might be valued at?

Hon. B. Penner: As I indicated previously, the exact amount is still to be determined, but I know from other jurisdictions that have worked on similar legislation….

For example, in the United States there is a cap-and-trade system for sulphur emissions. One of the concepts was to look for multiples of what the market price might have been. So you're putting out there, very clearly, a disincentive for people to game the system or not to comply with the regime, because they know upfront that they're going to be paying a multiple price, several times or many times the cost of what it would have been to actually comply with the mechanism that's been put in place. But the exact amounts are still yet to be determined.

S. Simpson: Heading further down the definitions, there's a definition here, "attributable." It defines it in the section on definitions: "…in relation to greenhouse gas emissions, means attributable under the regulations (a) to a regulated operation or reporting operation, or (b) for the purposes of determining whether an operation is a regulated operation or reporting operation."

Could the minister tell us who determines attribution in terms of that definition?

Hon. B. Penner: Under section 38(c), the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can establish "the greenhouse gas emissions that are deemed to be attributable to a regulated operation or reporting operation, or to an operation for the purposes of determining whether it is a regulated operation or reporting operation…." And it goes on in some more detail. In all likelihood, it would be the director under the act that would make the actual determination, but the process for doing that and the rationale or the methodology would be established through regulation.

S. Simpson: Just so I understand this in terms of the term "attributable," it would be, then…. The notion is that the director — or somebody else appointed by them, but let's just say the director — as is outlined in Bill 18, would make the determinations as to which industries or entities would be deemed to be a regulated operation or a reporting operation. So it's the director who ultimately creates the list, who says: "Here's the list of entities based on a set of criteria that I understand doesn't yet exist"?

S. Simpson: Well, we'll discuss that more a little later on in committee stage if we get the opportunity. Moving down to the next…. The "BC Allowance Unit" means a compliance unit issued under section 6. Could the minister explain what a B.C. allowance unit is?

Hon. B. Penner: In the definitions section, as the member will see, it says that the B.C. allowance unit is a compliance unit issued under section 6. If you turn to section 6(2), it says that each issued B.C. allowance unit "represents one tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions."

In essence, it gives an industrial entity the permission to emit up to one tonne of CO₂ emissions per compliance unit that they hold. Without that allowance unit, they would not be allowed to emit. Further, B.C. allowance units will be emission allowances issued by the government in accordance with the cap identified for a given compliance period.

S. Simpson: I understand the minister's answer. There will be X numbers of B.C. allowance units — millions of B.C. allowance units — to make up our emissions total. Then they will be allocated for those organizations or entities that fall under cap-and-trade. That will be their cap, presumably, and the minister will correct me if I'm wrong.

If we move to the "BC Emission Reduction Unit," could the minister then explain: how does the B.C. emission reduction unit work in relation to the B.C. allowance unit? What's that relationship, and how is that defined?

Hon. B. Penner: Just a point of clarification. The member made a comment, which I sometimes have been prone to do as well, referring to a specific cap for a specific business. The staff beside me reminds me that in fact, that's not how a cap-and-trade system works. Industry or businesses will acquire allowance units. Then they may try to acquire additional ones, or they may try to buy offsets or things like that.

B.C. emission reduction units are emission offset credits from approved B.C.-based emission reduction or removal projects. That's what BCERUs are. Again, just to reiterate, a cap system typically sets a maximum within a region or a geographic area, and then industry or businesses are free to trade amongst themselves underneath that cap. Over time we want to ratchet down that cap.

I don't know if the member has another quick question or if we should heed the hint from the….

Hon. B. Penner: On that note, then, taking advice from the opposition, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

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

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

A. Dix: It's a real pleasure today, because we can just continue on from question period. I thought we'd just warm up a little bit in there. It's like coming in from the bullpen, you know.

Surely the minister doesn't think that 15 code purples in 21 days is adequate, is good, is helpful. The doctors up there — I know he's met with them. So I don't think — I know he takes the issue seriously — that's something that will not have an impact on both the workplace and on the quality of care. He talked

about the new P3, which hadn't been originally envisioned to have any new acute care beds.

What is his sense of the current situation in Vernon in the light of what's really been an extraordinary year? The director of the hospital said that code purple happens, on average, five times a year. Well, 15 times in 21 days, 41 times in the first four months — that's a lot of issues in the emergency rooms, and clearly, that's not satisfactory. What does the minister see in the short term that he can do to assist the hospital in Vernon?

Hon. G. Abbott: Of course, we wouldn't want to have any code purples, if that were possible. Just so we can all put it in context, a code purple is a declaration by the hospital that says it is over capacity in the emergency department. What it does is put other agencies and facilities on notice that they are in a difficult situation at the hospital and that if it is possible to do things that reduce the pressures on the emergency department, people should do it.

An example would be that if there is a code purple, is it sensible for a local clinic to be referring someone further into the emergency department? Well, the answer is no. They should not be doing that. That is one of the ways that an over-capacity protocol like a code purple is of assistance to the facility in helping it manage the pressures of the moment.

When one looks at Vernon Jubilee Hospital, there are some issues at Vernon Jubilee which are comparable to issues that we have elsewhere in the system, whether it's at Surrey Memorial Hospital or St. Paul's, which we talked about earlier. Vernon Jubilee Hospital has been in Vernon now for about 100 years. It is a very good hospital. However, in large measure, that hospital was constructed for a population which is considerably smaller than Vernon and the surrounding area is today.

Vernon is one of those areas like Kelowna and, I guess, just like Salmon Arm a little further down the road, where population size and in particular the older demographic of that population have grown markedly. As a consequence, for all of the reasons we talked about earlier today in terms of how our health care consumption ramps up when we hit 65 and older…. Because the Shuswap, the North Okanagan and Vernon, the Central Okanagan and Kelowna have been such remarkably popular places for retirement, we are seeing very large numbers in terms of the characteristic of the population that are served in those hospitals.

It is not by accident that the province of British Columbia has committed close to $100 million to the redevelopment of Vernon Jubilee Hospital and in particular to the addition of an ambulatory tower for Vernon Jubilee Hospital. But that's not the only piece. Having that tower will allow the further redevelopment of that hospital in the years ahead.

Do we like code purples? No. Are they necessary and useful? Yes, they can be. Are we taking the appropriate steps in terms of reinvestment? Yes, we are, and I'm proud of that. I'm proud that in the distribution of capital dollars for the province of British Columbia, one of the very largest projects that has been identified for the forthcoming years is Vernon Jubilee Hospital in Vernon.

A. Dix: The minister would be aware of what doctors — in particular, Dr. Chris Cunningham and Dr. Hamish Hwang — have said about the situation in Vernon. I guess the direct question is: is there a plan, because there hasn't been a plan, to increase the number of acute care beds in Vernon?

What they're saying, clearly, is that the hospital is on the brink of disaster. They're saying — not me — that it's unsafe.

My question to the minister is…. They're saying that we need more acute care beds. The plan is to do the ambulatory care centre. Are there going to be any new acute care beds in Vernon?

Hon. G. Abbott: There are a few issues that need to be noted in response to the member's question.

First of all, there's a reason why we're investing close to $100 million — because we recognize that there is an issue there in terms of capacity. We would not be investing those kind of dollars in Vernon Jubilee Hospital were we not convinced that there were real issues to be resolved.

Now, we could do, I suppose, what another government did back in the 1990s, which is nothing, and be cheerful about that, but we're not. We're actually making huge investments in the province of British Columbia, including at Vernon Jubilee Hospital. We're doing it because we believe that there are issues to be resolved, notably that this is a facility that, in relation to the population it now serves, is undersized.

That is the same reason why we are making the investments we are at Kelowna General Hospital in a number of areas. Again, it is undersized in relation to the population.

It is worth noting, as well, that…. This goes to the point I made earlier about the patient demographics and the regional demographics in terms of an aging population. At Vernon on April 8 — and this is an example — they were ten patients over census. Nine of those patients were waiting for re-placement in residential care.

One of the ways that the issue of acute care capacity will be resolved is by the huge investments that we are making, in addition to the $100 million, in Vernon and the North Okanagan in terms of residential care and assisted-living capacity.

If we have that many ALC patients or that percentage of patients that are alternative level of care — that is, they're in acute care beds, but they really need residential care — does it make more sense to add acute care beds, or does it make more sense to add residential care beds? The answer to that, I believe, is that it makes more sense to add residential care. That's really what's needed, not interim acute care capacity.

The member may disagree, and I'd certainly appreciate him letting me know if he disagrees that we should add acute care capacity instead of residential care capacity. I'd love to know that, if he's prepared to divulge what the NDP's official view is in that regard.

It is good to note that with the number of patients who are awaiting residential care placement and thereby occupying acute care beds in Vernon Jubilee, within the next weeks — and this is June 2008 — we will see 42 residential care beds in Armstrong, expanding the Interior Health–owned Pleasant Valley Manor. That's opening 42 beds in June of 2008, just a few weeks away.

Additionally, in June 2008, just a few weeks away, 66 residential care and 24 assisted-living units with Kaigo Retirement at Creekside Villa in Vernon will also open. That's 108 new residential care plus 24 assisted living and, additionally, six new beds with the expansion of the Vernon hospice, again, in summer of 2008.

That is going to be a major relief valve for the acute care capacity at Vernon Jubilee Hospital. It's going to be extraordinarily helpful. The major capital project is also going to be an important part of that, and discussions are continuing around that.

A. Dix: Just to remind the minister of the question, which he didn't answer. He answered several other questions, which is fair enough. This is estimates. The question I asked was: are there plans on the books to add acute care beds to that hospital?

Hon. G. Abbott: That matter is under discussion with the regional hospital, the Columbia-Shuswap–North Okanagan regional hospital district.

A. Dix: I guess the answer for the moment is no but that it's under discussion, and that might change. That's what the minister just said, I think. That's fair enough.

I know that the minister has dismissed their report with respect to funding levels, but it's the doctors at that hospital who raised the issue. It's the doctors at that hospital who did a report and said that there needed to be more acute care bed capacity.

I don't think those doctors, by the way, are saying that there doesn't need to be residential care capacity developed. I'm sure those doctors would have loved it if the government had followed through on its 2001 promise for long-term care beds. That having been said, the doctors at the hospital have called on the government to deal with what they say is and will be an acute care crisis even if we meet residential care demands. It doesn't appear at the moment, although I guess the "under discussion" thing gives us all some hope that the situation will improve.

I want to ask the minister about similar questions in Fraser Health, but before we leave, maybe I'll jump out of order here to ask him about the projects in Kelowna and Vernon. Why is it that there is still on the table this idea of contracting out the maintenance for those existing facilities?

The minister has probably toured them more than I have. I've toured both facilities. The maintenance staff are somewhat understaffed, it should be said, but they do kind of heroic work, because, as the minister says, they're both older facilities, particularly Vernon. Why is it that that proposal, when having maintenance staff on staff would appear to be cheaper…?

I mean, I think that if those people who work in maintenance at those two hospitals were to go to the private sector, they would probably charge out a significantly higher rate, but they are committed to the hospital. Why is it that they're continuing to consider the contracting-out of jobs at the existing Vernon and Kelowna facilities?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member says that the doctors at Vernon Jubilee Hospital have issued a report. Dr. Cunningham and, I believe, Dr. Hwang were the two physicians that co-authored the report. I've read the report and had a very good look at the report, as has Interior Health Authority.

It is the view of the health authority that the conceptual model and the comparators which the doctors used to form their conclusions are flawed. That is, they used a comparator to the South Okanagan which I think involved a larger area than they used for the proportionate comparison in the North Okanagan. I know that Interior Health really has called into question the validity of the claim that Vernon Jubilee Hospital is underfunded.

The member also asked why we would be looking at contracting maintenance out as part of the P3 process.

The answer to that question is that no conclusions have been formed. The health authority and Partnerships B.C. have to look at the business case around maintenance as part of the package. It may or may not be part of the package ultimately, but it is something that we would want to consider within the context of what produces the best value for the taxpayers of British Columbia.

I'm presuming that even the opposition puts some value on what produces the best value for the taxpayers of British Columbia. That is what we're looking at, and our decisions will be formed on that basis.

A. Dix: The opposition certainly values the work being done under sometimes difficult circumstances at those hospitals by the current maintenance staff. As you know, anyone who has maintenance work to do

knows — and it seems unlikely to us, and certainly unfortunate — that their jobs continue to be part of this process and all of the uncertainty that goes with that.

It seems to us on the opposition side that the extraordinary job that they do every day should be recognized. So this continuing uncertainty that they're facing is, I think, an unfortunate thing. Yes, we support them in their belief that they're doing an excellent job. I guess that's the difference between the government and us.

With respect to the doctors at Vernon Jubilee Hospital, let's be clear. Their situation is greatly supported by what's going on at the hospital, and what's going on at the hospital is a crisis in funding and a crisis in acute care beds right now. You don't have all these code purples…. The minister can pooh-pooh them and say they don't matter. The fact of the matter is that they used to have five a year, according to the administrator, or five to ten a year to be fair, and they've had 41 in the first four months. That's a pretty serious situation in Vernon.

You may say that this one or that one is not a problem or is not that serious, but I think what it speaks to are the conditions of that hospital. It seems to support the position taken by Dr. Hwang and Dr. Cunningham far more than it supports the position of the health authority and the minister.

That having been said, I'd like to ask the minister a couple of questions about Fraser Health. As the minister noted earlier, the service plans for the health authorities…. This is under the section 13 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. It requires the public release of all service plans except, of course, health authorities, health and educational organizations. The service plans for the health authority weren't posted last year till October, so some of the information we have to base this on, in terms of the service plans of the health authority, is, of course, the last service plan.

The last service plan in the Fraser Health Authority talked about, I think, a considerable risk in terms of the current health services being overwhelmed. It's the same issue as in Vernon. So I'd like to ask the minister about it. The level of acute care beds in the Fraser Health Authority has dropped, and it will continue to drop, according to the Fraser Health Authority, even with the addition of the beds in Abbotsford, to 1.35 beds per thousand.

Does the minister not think that this…? Certainly, the reports and the results of the acute care capacity initiative seem to suggest that the government hasn't responded adequately to these demands. Does the minister think that that level of acute care beds…? I mean, there's this debate — and it's a fair debate — that the minister put forward earlier that says that there are two ways to respond to these problems. One is to deal with it through long-term care, and we need to do that. But at some point, at some level, surely you have to deal with that by dealing with acute care beds as well.

If you see population growth as we've seen in the Fraser Health Authority, surely you've got to deal with acute care beds as well.

So does the minister think that that level of acute care beds in the Fraser Health Authority is safe? Does he not think that the fact the acute care capacity initiative seems to indicate that the number of beds, as expressed as a ratio per thousand, is going to continue to drop and that the Fraser Health Authority and the Vancouver Coastal Health authority say that we're 650 beds short today, right now…? Does the minister not think that in fact we need to take dramatic steps to deal with the problem of acute care beds, understanding that there are other issues and other problems that need to be dealt with as well?

Hon. G. Abbott: To complete our discussion around the maintenance department at Vernon Jubilee Hospital. I had the pleasure a few months ago to meet with the maintenance department at Vernon Jubilee Hospital. Representatives came up and met me at my constituency office. It's clear they do a very good job at Vernon Jubilee Hospital, and their efforts are very much appreciated.

That having been said, if the member is suggesting that we should dismiss out of hand any potential taxpayer value in looking at maintenance as part of a P3 because we have very good maintenance workers currently at Vernon Jubilee Hospital, then it reflects, I guess, a fundamentally different view, as he says, of these issues.

I think that in the years ahead, whether it's at Vernon Jubilee Hospital or a hundred other facilities across the province, we'll be looking for more people to work in health care delivery, not less. There will be many, many opportunities across the board, whether it's in maintenance or elsewhere, for people in health care delivery.

Should we dismiss the opportunity that might be produced by having maintenance as part of a P3 project? I don't think so. I think that we are not doing a responsible job on behalf of the taxpayers of British Columbia if we dismiss out of hand the possibility that we might be able to secure a wise return on investment from looking at maintenance. That's exactly what we're doing. It has to be driven by a business case that supports it, or it won't happen.

I guess the second point…. This opposition Health critic and other members of the NDP constantly talk in terms of crisis, and I guess for political purposes that might be a useful and valuable thing.

From the perspective of having an effective and well-rounded health care system in the province of British Columbia, I don't think it's appropriate. If you say everything is a crisis, then nothing is a crisis. Frankly, they overuse and misuse that term far too much in terms of trying to generate fear amongst British Columbians, and I do think it is inappropriate.

In terms of the issue again — and I referenced it earlier, but it's important to understand it — our government made a decision in terms of the relative balance between residential care and assisted-living investments versus simply adding more acute care capacity. Neither one comes cheaply. Both are important, so

what is the smart thing to do? What is the wise thing to do when you have a situation where you're over capacity in acute care, and a very significant portion of that over-capacity is driven by patients who need residential care? Is it wiser to build more acute care capacity for them, or is it wiser to build residential capacity?

I think the answer, if one looks at it from a health economics perspective, is that clearly the wiser thing to do is build more residential care and assisted-living capacity. Further, from a human perspective — and I've been through this with my father, who was in residential care in Salmon Arm…. He was far happier getting out of the acute care system and into residential care.

I think we're doing the right thing from a human perspective, any time we can add incremental residential care and assisted-living capacity and thereby ease the burden on acute care beds, rather than simply reflexively saying that adding acute care beds is the answer to everything.

Acute care beds are important. Don't get me wrong. Acute care beds are very important, but residential care and assisted living are equally important. The fact that in the context of Vernon Jubilee Hospital we are adding in the next weeks ahead — just the next weeks ahead — 108 residential care beds and 24 assisted-living beds…. I should say units, because these are far more than beds. These are very, very nice private units. That much capacity is going to have a profound impact on the pressures that are felt at Vernon Jubilee Hospital given the percentage of those acute care beds that are held down by ALC patients.

On Fraser Health Authority, the first thing I would want to note is that since we took office, there has in fact been 7 percent more acute care capacity added in Fraser Health since 2001. Looking at the numbers: 1,998 in 2002-03 and 2,156 in 2007-08 — or 158 new beds, about 7 percent additional capacity.

Over and above that — and again, I think this is very important — Fraser Health has added in the last few years almost as many residential care and assisted-living beds in the Fraser Health Authority than the NDP government did through its entire term of office in the 1990s.

There's been a huge investment — well over 1,000 beds or units added — in the Fraser Health Authority, and that has made a huge difference. Again, every time we have incremental residential care and assisted living, it takes pressure off the acute care side. It doesn't replace acute care, but acute care is important in itself. If it's really residential care and assisted living that one needs, it is far better to make the investment in that area rather than putting all of the eggs in the acute care basket. That doesn't work as well, in my view.

In terms of building that acute care capacity, though, I think a very good example of adding capacity will be when the Abbotsford regional hospital and cancer centre opens on August 24 of this year. Just about two or three months away, we'll be seeing that great new facility opening up in Abbotsford.

Not only are we going to have the first regional hospital open up in over 30 years; we are going to be seeing a new cancer centre in Abbotsford and far better service for cancer patients on the east end of the Fraser Valley, and we are going to have — incrementally, I think — over 70 additional acute care beds in that facility. We're going to have a far bigger out-patient area.

That's one of the things, as the member knows, that has changed over the last couple of decades. There has been a huge shift between in-patient and out-patient numbers in those hospitals. I think that now about 80 percent of procedures are done on an out-patient basis in hospitals. There is a huge expansion of out-patient capacity at the new Abbotsford hospital, but there will also be some additional acute care capacity and area for other capacity additions in the future.

A. Dix: I think the minister talked about us raising issues. I'll just quote what the board chair of the Fraser Health Authority says:

So it's not us, alone, talking about this. Certainly, the chair of Fraser Health expressed it very strongly and very well.

Since the minister has the figures in front of him…. Because he gave us the figures from 2002 to the present, can he tell us what's happened to the ratio of acute care beds per thousand population in Fraser Health over that time, between 2002 and 2008?

Hon. G. Abbott: We don't have those numbers at the moment. They will be coming in though. I would predict, though, in advance of those numbers that the ratio is probably going down. Predictably, when one has the kind of population growth that's been experienced by Fraser Health and the number of acute care beds has grown by 7 percent, likely the ratio probably is a slightly smaller one than it was earlier.

Why would that be the case? Again, I don't know how many times I need to repeat this, but it's clear that it's at least one more time, so I'll do that in my extraordinarily patient way. If a significant proportion of one's acute care beds is tied down by people who really don't need acute care, then it is appropriate in that instance to build additional capacity in the form of care they

need, which is most likely residential care or assisted living, because that way one creates a new capacity on the acute care side.

This is not some strict kind of a plus/minus formula thing. If you don't build residential care capacity and you overload acute care, then, yes, you have an issue. We have made a decision as a government that we are going to add across the province, incrementally, 5,000 additional residential care and assisted-living units. That will have the effect, in many cases, of freeing up acute care capacity at acute care hospitals.

Again, the member may say: "Oh, don't put the money in residential care; put it all in acute care." Well, that's not a wise decision, in my view, but if they want to articulate that vision for the province, they're certainly welcome to do that. We can fight an election around it if that's their wish. I think we can do that, but it is not a wise thing to do.

In terms of the comments of the chair of Fraser Health, first of all, we must recognize that when we ask for service plans from the health authorities, we ask them to identify risks to the service plan.

I don't know whether the member knows Mr. Barefoot, the chair of Fraser Health, but he is a very blunt and straightforward man — calls a spade a spade. That's the way he operates. When he sees risks, he lets us know in no uncertain terms that there are risks, and I welcome that. What we want from the health authorities is that kind of blunt assessment of where the challenges are. So I don't have a quarrel with that.

We're not trying to create some type of Orwellian relationship with the health authorities, where they tell us everything is great and there are no pressures, because that's clearly not the case. There are many pressures in this system. There are many, many places that we could be making investments in the system. We now have 45 percent of the provincial budget devoted to health. We have a very significant portion of the capital budget of the province devoted to health, and 68 cents out of every dollar for the next three years will be spent on health.

If the member can advise where we magically pluck money from the money tree and thereby have no pressures on budget, I'd be delighted to hear it, and I'm sure that Gordon Barefoot would be delighted to hear it, but that's not reality. The reality is that there are lots of pressures, and those pressures will continue. We're going to be blunt and honest in our assessment of how to produce the best results from the dollars we have available.

A. Dix: Of course, we'll be delighted to fight an election, I'm sure, on the government's broken promise of 5,000 long-term care beds, its cuts to assisted living and everything else. We'll be delighted to fight that election, but we won't be distracted by that debate today.

I wanted to ask the minister about some other elements of Fraser Health's plan last year which he hasn't answered. The first is specifically about some of those issues. It states in the plan that Fraser Health has collaborated with other health authorities and identified a number of revenue generation opportunities which will require ministry approval and regulatory or policy changes. This appears in other health authority plans, although Fraser Health is the most fulsome in spelling them out. They include residential care co-payments, implementing co-payments for home support clients, etc.

Will the government be approving that request? Presumably it came forward in last year's plan, and presumably it did not get approved last year. Has the government received requests to implement co-payments for home support clients, and will the government be approving those increases?

Hon. G. Abbott: The issue with respect to co-payment for residential care facilities is still under consideration. No final decisions have been made.

We're a bit puzzled by the reference to co-payment on home support. That's not a request that we recall giving any consideration to.

A. Dix: Well, the request was in last year's Fraser Health plan on page 41. Perhaps you can get back to me on that.

I had another question with respect to Fraser Health. They talked about a number of programs that they said in last year's plan are actively in the planning stages and will be deferred to a future time. These include…. I don't expect the minister to be able to answer all of these, but it would be nice to maybe hear about them all at once later on.

I should take this opportunity to thank the minister's staff, too. Last year, for all the questions that were in some fashion taken on notice, the minister's office staff made sure that we got responses to every single one of them, so I wanted to express my appreciation to them in their work.

Here's the list. These include implementation…. It's from page 55 of the plan. Implementation of a regional trauma program, expansion of the thoracic program at Surrey Memorial Hospital by a third surgeon, repatriation of pediatric surgery from B.C.'s Children's Hospital, repatriation of low-risk deliveries from B.C. Women's Hospital and expansion of ICU beds at Royal Columbian Hospital. I know that they changed or that they created a new centre, but I don't think that they expanded the beds. I'm not sure. The minister was there.

I just wanted to ask the minister if he can perhaps get back to us later on some of these programs, just to see where they sit now, having been delayed in that year in the previous-round budget for Fraser Health.

Hon. G. Abbott: We don't have that information immediately on hand. Rather than take the time to gather all that before we move on, perhaps we'll move on. We'll try to get that to the member if not during the course of the estimates, as soon as possible thereafter.

I want to ask the minister about something in Vancouver Coastal Health, which is an issue that he

has spoken about and receives letters about. I have spoken about it and received letters about it.

It's the issue of sex reassignment surgery. Dr. Cameron Bowman, the minister will know, was trained by Vancouver Coastal Health to perform this surgery. We've been covering SRS in British Columbia for about a decade. The minister will know that patients get sent outside the province, sometimes outside the country, to get this surgery, but there's no capacity in British Columbia today.

Dr. Bowman was trained in order to provide that capacity. He can provide that capacity for cheaper than it costs to send people outside the province. Obviously, it's cheaper. Even though the medical costs are picked up outside the province, it's more expensive, and it's very expensive for the individuals as well.

The minister's explanation for why they didn't want to have Dr. Bowman do this work was something like this, and I just want to make sure that I understand. The minister said: "Dr. Bowman is the only person doing the surgery. If Dr. Bowman were to become unavailable, then we'd have no one to back him up, and we'd have to send people out of province."

Well, I guess what I'd say to that and ask about that is…. That's the present situation. The worst scenario in the minister's situation and the reason he's not doing it is the actual status quo. I'm not sure I understood correctly. I think that's what the minister said, but it was just a clip in an article. He didn't give an extensive response to it, so I thought that I'd just ask the minister about that today. He and I have both received quite a few letters on this question, and obviously, it has an impact on the lives of lots of people.

Hon. G. Abbott: The issue of SRS, sexual reassignment surgery, for patients is an important one, and it is an issue which the ministry gave considerable thought and analysis to in past months.

Like every other province in Canada, British Columbia's SRS patients go on to the one clinic in Montreal that undertakes the surgeries and, to everyone's knowledge, undertakes them very well and very professionally. The record in respect of patient safety at the Montreal facility has been excellent. The fact that every other province is having their SRS patients go on to Montreal, I think, speaks well to the safety and efficacy of the program that is offered in Montreal, Quebec.

The question is: why not just do it in British Columbia? I think central to the ministry's analysis of that question was that one should not attempt to develop a complex surgical program based on one surgeon who can provide the service. Again, I can consult with staff and get more detail in respect of that point, but it is very clear that we would be building the program — if we were to do it — around the availability of one surgeon.

That, I understand, from a surgical management perspective, is just not a wise and appropriate thing to do, especially given that the program that is being offered in Montreal has proven both safe and efficacious. To try to achieve the same kind of patient safety based on one surgeon operating a program is not wise from the ministry's perspective.

A. Dix: Surely the minister will agree that it was Vancouver Coastal Health and others who encouraged Dr. Bowman to go and get trained — right? They knew this several years ago. There are 140 patients on the waiting list for this care. The current model of sending patients out of province…. There have been 55 patients who received treatment between 2001 and 2006 out of province, and there are currently 140 patients on the waiting list.

It seems to me, anyway…. Patients have generally gone to Montreal, as you said, but other patients…. MSP, as I understand it, has funded SRS in some American states as well.

I guess the question that I'm asking about in Dr. Bowman's case is…. It's the health authority that went down this path. The ministry knew about it and, I gather, supported it — him getting trained. So what was the purpose of training him? And what is the purpose of having…?

We have this very long waiting list now. It seems to me that that decision to encourage him to go and get trained, and then the decision now, is surely a flip-flop. Not to allow him to perform the surgery doesn't seem to make sense.

Surely the services provided in Montreal are still there, but this would allow us to provide care here in British Columbia at a lower cost and using a British Columbia surgeon, one who, I think, has shown a real commitment to his patients.

I guess I'm a bit perplexed at the notion that we're sending people to Montreal again — because if Dr. Bowman isn't available, we'll have to send them to Montreal. I just don't think that makes sense. I guess what I'm asking the minister to do is to reconsider. Obviously, Dr. Bowman's departure also means that some of the other work he does, particularly with respect to breast reconstruction surgery — and an increase in wait times for that surgery may be the result….

It seems to me that at a time when we're short of doctors — in some areas, anyway — that not funding this doctor, who may well save the province money, seems to be the wrong course. I want to ask the minister if he or the ministry has made a final decision, or are they still reflecting on that issue?

Hon. G. Abbott: Perhaps I can just make a few comments to assist the member's understanding of this issue.

First of all, yes, a final decision has been made — that is, not to proceed with SRS in British Columbia. That is based, I think, on the prudent management of resources in British Columbia. Like every other province in Canada, the sexual reassignment surgeries go on to Montreal. There are some aspects in some cases

that can be done in B.C. Mastectomies can be done in British Columbia. But most parts of the SRS will be undertaken, as has been the case in the past, in Montreal.

Again, for Ontario, even though it's a considerably larger province than Quebec, its SRS patients go on to Montreal as well. With a larger program, with a larger critical mass, one can ensure that issues like patient safety are best achieved. I understand that about 20 new cases a year are presented in British Columbia. One can't build a program around 20 patients.

We are skeptical of the notion that this will be a cost saving to the province, frankly. Regardless of whether it's a cost saving or not, patient safety is not going to be achieved by having a program built around one surgeon. Maybe it's just the one surgeon, but there are also nurses involved with it and a lot of other support staff, as well as the programmatic work that would go on.

It is not a wise appropriation of resources from either a patient safety perspective or an efficacy-of-resources perspective to try to do what is done effectively in Montreal.

A. Dix: Just one last question on this part of it. The ministry asked the division to include SRS in the contract here. Dr. Bowman was sent to Belgium to get trained. Did the ministry have a change of mind here? Was the idea to provide the service here? Surely the minister doesn't think it is ideal.

Dr. Bowman, I believe, met with the Deputy Minister of Health at the time, and somebody had the idea that having people treated in British Columbia would be a better idea than sending them away — especially for the patient. There is often therapy that goes along with this, and being 3,000 miles away from your surgeon and so on is not the ideal circumstance. I think everyone would agree.

I understand the minister's concern about safety. But was there a point at which the minister or the ministry changed its mind on this, in light of the fact that it was included in the contracts for the plastics division? Dr. Bowman was sent away for the training.

None of that seems to be consistent with the ministry's view now that everyone should go to Montreal. I'll ask the minister that question, and I'll ask him a question about the other part of Dr. Bowman's practice, because a number of his patients have come to me on this.

The minister responded on the issue of breast reconstruction surgery by saying that the number of surgeries was up last year. Well, one of the reasons it was up last year was that Dr. Bowman was in fact performing the surgeries, and there are significant wait-lists. There are only two alternate surgeons available.

I wanted to ask the minister whether he thought that not funding Dr. Bowman's position was wise, given the long wait-list for that surgery as well and, clearly, the overall shortage of plastic surgeons both in Vancouver Coastal Health and across British Columbia.

Hon. G. Abbott: In answer to the first part of the member's question, the ministry makes its decisions based on the evidence that is gathered on any particular issue. It may be that what was found three, four or five years ago to draw decisions in a certain direction has produced a different decision now, with more fulsome evidence. But I am very supportive of that decision. It's the right decision from a patient safety perspective, and I support it. It will continue to be so.

In terms of Dr. Bowman, I don't know whether the member has a letter from Dr. Bowman inviting him to ask questions which may, in some measure, offend the privacy rights of Dr. Bowman, but I presume he has a specific request from Dr. Bowman to do that. My understanding of Dr. Bowman's position was that because of the death of one of the breast reconstruction surgeons at the St. Paul's–UBC plastics division two or three years ago, Dr. Bowman was hired in a replacement position in the plastics group there.

Because Dr. Bowman does not have the requisite training in microvascular surgery that's required at the VCH division of plastic surgery, another plastic surgeon has been added to the division in place of Dr. Bowman. I understand that Dr. Bowman continues to do other surgeries.

I don't know to what level the member wishes me to go into this. I mean, if he can tell me definitively that Dr. Bowman wants the world to know everything he's doing, we can tell them that. But I'm not sure if that's what he's chasing or not.

A. Dix: I met with Dr. Bowman's patients. I've met with Dr. Bowman as well, and he obviously has concerns. He believes, as do patients, that on the SRS issue it makes more sense to provide care for patients in British Columbia, especially when you went out of your way to train someone to provide the care. So he has that view, and I share that view. I think that most of the patients share the view that it's not ideal to send patients 3,000 miles away.

Equally, Dr. Bowman came to my attention when he was forced to cancel surgeries for patients. He had to do what everyone has to do at that point, which is to send a letter to patients saying this is the situation. That's the responsible thing to do, and that's what he did.

Our concern is…. Certainly, we haven't seen…. The other doctors in question also have long waiting lists, and patients have not been, as I understand it, reassigned. So what I'm asking the minister is whether the fact that Dr. Bowman isn't doing that work any longer will lead to longer wait-lists for breast reconstruction surgery, which I think is beyond what happens to Dr. Bowman himself? Really, the question is: are people going to be able to get the very important care that they need in their lives?

Hon. G. Abbott: We'll get more information on this, but I'm going from my recollections at the time when Dr. Bowman's unfortunate letter to his patients became a public issue. I know that the NDP had a high-profile news conference that they gathered in Vancouver to make claims about cancelled surgeries

and longer wait times, etc. But Dr. Bowman was not forced to cancel surgeries. What occurred was his replacement in the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority's St. Paul's–UBC plastics division by a surgeon who had different qualifications and who was taken on to do the work.

What was occurring was not cancelled surgeries but the transfer of patients from one surgeon to another surgeon, with the original surgeon being unhappy about that. I guess that's fair enough. I can't imagine that Dr. Bowman was pleased by that. But does that mean that there are going to be longer surgeries because Dr. Bowman is not doing them and someone who is differently qualified is doing them? No.

We're getting the detail on this, but I think there are pretty reasonable time lines around wait times for breast reconstruction surgery. I know for a fact that the number of surgeries that are being done in the breast reconstruction line grows every year, and they are being funded for further growth in the year ahead.

A. Dix: I want to ask the minister about another, smaller issue, in this case, but an important issue for people waiting for care, and that's the issue of cardiac ablation. This is an issue that we raised in January of this year, as the minister will recall. Originally, the government was quite reluctant, I think, to address what was an extremely long waiting list, in spite of the fact that there seemed to be the capacity to do something about that list.

The government made some commitments to open up more capacity, I think, at Royal Jubilee Hospital in the following six months. I'm wondering if the minister can give us a progress report on that.

Hon. G. Abbott: I can. Again, for a little bit of background, this is a relatively new procedure sometimes described as electrophysiology or cardiac ablation. In the world of procedures, it is a relatively new one. In fact, British Columbia is a leader in Canada in terms of electrophysiology or cardiac ablation.

This is proving a very promising treatment for arrhythmia. Just to give you a sense of the growth here, in 2001 some 960 patients were treated through ablation therapy. In 2007 that had grown to 1,660 patients treated through electrophysiology for this condition. That is a 73 percent increase over that period of time by any measure, even by the lofty expectations of the opposition Health critic. I'm sure he's greatly impressed by a 73 percent increase from the time we took office to the present time. I think that's important.

It is also important to note that like so many other things, we are guided to a considerable extent by the number of surgeons who can undertake this work. We have six specialists in total in the province. I think most are at Royal Jubilee, but I think there are a couple at St. Paul's as well. The province has invested in a second lab at Royal Jubilee Hospital, and we are busy working with the Provincial Health Services Authority to see if we can further expand the program from its already expanded level.

A. Dix: I think the issue was with the second lab, which was essentially sitting dormant, according to the doctors there. I am wondering: is the minister still in the consideration process of that? Sometimes percentage increases, when you're talking about new treatment…. If a treatment is new, by definition the increase is 100 percent, I guess.

I know that the minister…. They made commitments at the time — I think it was in January — that action would be taken in terms of opening the second lab within six months. I believe that was the commitment, but the minister, I'm sure, can correct me if my understanding is not correct.

I'm just curious to see if the Vancouver Island Health Authority or the Provincial Health Services Authority in that case are actually following through on those commitments.

Hon. G. Abbott: The second lab was a wise investment by the province. The second lab, as I understand it, requires additional short-stay recovery beds, which are currently under construction at VIHA. I think they are close if not completed.

Again, to reinforce the point that I made in my previous answer, we believe that electrophysiology can be remarkably valuable in terms of dealing with very serious conditions like arrhythmia. We made the decisions around the capital side advisedly because we believe that this is a very valuable investment.

Similarly, we've issued capital funding to Vancouver Coastal Health, St. Paul's, for electrophysiology mapping equipment to reduce the wait-list. About $500,000 will be invested there in '07-08, and we'll be doing the same thing for the Vancouver Island Health Authority — again, a comparable investment to ensure we can maximize the use of the very sophisticated equipment and the very sophisticated surgeons that are required to do this procedure.

But let us be clear. We think that this is an excellent investment. It can have great benefits in terms of reducing the number of pharmaceuticals that some of these patients require. The procedure can substantially improve the quality of their lives. This is a relatively new area of surgical procedure, but it is a very valuable one and will, without a doubt, be a growing area of surgical endeavour in the years ahead.

A. Dix: As the minister will know, people in British Columbia sit on wait-lists. Sometimes they measure those wait-lists in years for this treatment. Some patients, in fact, have gone down, as he will be aware, to Bellingham at extraordinary costs. I think that it's an indication…. The cost at Royal Jubilee and at St. Paul's is, as I understand it, less than $10,000. What they're being charged in Bellingham is something over $30,000. It's an indication of the costs in their health care system.

Minister, we're just arranging schedules here. My colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds is going to ask, I think, some questions about Burnaby General Hospital. Then he's going to have to go to do other duties in the

House. So we're going to have a little bit of a change — someone new to engage the minister, my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds.

R. Chouhan: Actually, it's not about Burnaby Hospital but about Burnaby-Edmonds constituents who are going through some difficulties. I sent a letter to the minister on May 1 regarding Susan Anthony, a woman who has breast cancer, and then she developed a hernia because of a blood disorder. She is now deemed unsuitable to be operated on at the UBC Hospital, and she has been referred to VGH. VGH has only four hours, I understand, per week to operate, provide surgeries, for these so-called unsuitable patients.

So my question is: is there anything available for those kinds of people — for example, Susan Anthony — who are suffering from that situation? They have to wait more and more. She's been told to go to UBC. She can't get any help at UBC. So is anything happening in that area?

Hon. G. Abbott: I always try to be very cautious in terms of discussing specific patient files in the context of legislative debate. I think that just in fairness to the patients as well…. I assume that the member has a letter of consent allowing the patient to have her conditions aired in the Legislative Assembly. But not withstanding that, I still want to be cautious around it.

The member knows, because he has brought me a number of cases, that whenever I am in receipt of a case file on behalf of one of his constituents, we follow through very aggressively to try to get the issue resolved. We try to do that, whether the patient is from a riding represented by an NDP member or a riding represented by a B.C. Liberal member. We always try to ensure that we follow up effectively to try to get a resolution to the case in hand.

So I don't want to speculate on Ms. Anthony in this chamber. I would rather have all of the details that the member can provide around her case file for me, and we will work with B.C. Cancer Agency and with the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority or whoever else is involved in this — maybe it's the Fraser Health Authority as well — to see if we can resolve whatever care or surgical needs that Ms. Anthony may require.

One of the things that we do enjoy in this province is a really outstanding cancer control system. One of the things British Columbians can be very certain of is that once they are into the B.C. cancer system, their needs are going to be appropriately recognized and dealt with, because they're very good. I know from personal experience — not with myself, but with family and friends that I have known — that in fact the system is a very strong one in terms of people getting timely surgeries as they require them.

So I don't want to speculate about whether Ms. Anthony should or shouldn't have surgeries or that sort of thing. Those are clearly decisions that medical professionals have to make. In every case, what B.C. Cancer Agency will try to do is to ensure that patients either get their surgeries or other treatment on a timely basis.

Sometimes there are issues where treatment for one condition is complicated by the presence of other conditions or chronic conditions, though again, I don't want to speculate about whether that is so in this case. I am happy to commit to the member that if he provides me with the file, we will vigorously undertake it. The member knows from his experience with me and my office that we get the job done.

R. Chouhan: For that same reason…. I really appreciate that, in the past, every time I've brought an issue to the minister's attention, it has been dealt with promptly and in time.

This one…. I sent a letter a few weeks ago and didn't get an answer. I got a call from my constituent to ask this question, so that's the reason. I will send you a copy again. So the minister will look into that.

My second question is about the Seniors Wellness program in Burnaby. There are four centres in Burnaby that have volunteer retired doctors who have been helping seniors over the years and have been doing a wonderful job. They have received approximately $35,000 a year from the Fraser Health.

This year they got a notice from Fraser Health saying that their funding will not be restored, that they would not get that funding. After it was discussed in the community, the Fraser Health now has said that they will get $30,000 this year alone, but not on an ongoing basis. The program, which has really helped many, many seniors…. After attending that program, they don't have to go see their doctor or even have to go to the hospital, because they get good advice.

So my request is for the minister to talk to Fraser Health and see if he can get that funding restored on a permanent basis. It costs only $3.17 per patient in a year to have that program. So if the minister could comment on that, it would greatly appreciated.

Hon. G. Abbott: I am familiar with the Seniors Wellness program in Burnaby. A number of the B.C. Liberal MLAs, as well as the member of the opposition, raised the matter with me, so I did have some discussions with Fraser Health on the program. Fraser Health has agreed to fund it again for the current year.

The thing that I would note in terms of that particular program is that Fraser Health does have to make decisions around the allocation of their resources. Obviously, they think enough about the program to fund it again this year. But one of the things that is happening within the sort of landscape of health care delivery in Burnaby and elsewhere is that we are trying to put in place a far more robust model of primary care than has been the case ever in the past in British Columbia.

So as we build that primary care model, Fraser Health is going to have to make decisions about whether they can most effectively deliver primary care through essentially volunteer organizations like Burnaby Seniors Wellness and, I guess, conclude how that

fits into any new primary care initiatives that may be undertaken by Fraser Health.

I think Fraser Health is certainly mindful of this program, and I'm confident that they will make appropriate decisions over time about how effectively the Seniors Wellness program can fit into any expanded primary care initiatives that they will undertake in Burnaby.

R. Chouhan: One last question. This is about the Cedars program. I'm sure that the minister is aware of that. The Cedars program is a treatment centre for young women that Fraser Health funds, but the funding for that program is only provided 50 percent by Fraser Health.

When we contacted Fraser Health, we were told that they won't be able to provide more funding because they did not receive additional funding from the Ministry of Health. It's a very good program, as the minister is aware. Is there any additional funding available for a program like the Cedars program, please?

Hon. G. Abbott: We don't have information on the Cedars immediately at hand. What we'll do, rather than take time for the issue note to be brought in, is commit to the member to getting that to him as quickly as possible.

A. Dix: I just have a question for the minister. The minister mentioned ALC beds by health authority. It's one of the interesting questions that one tries to…. When one tries to learn through the service plan, some health authorities talk about those beds as a percentage of overall beds. Vancouver Coastal Health provides that information.

I was wondering if the minister had or would be able to get, and I'd be happy to get it at some point, the information by health authority — or at least the estimates by health authority, because sometimes they are estimates in fact, and not exact — as to where the different health authorities are on that issue.

The minister made this point when we were talking about funding formulas for Vancouver Coastal Health. It seems to me that there are dramatic differences, in fact, amongst the health authorities. One of the most significant ones is here on Vancouver Island, where there are real issues. It's one of the issues that causes such problems at the Port Alberni hospital — some of the problems we're seeing now. I know that the member will be talking about those later.

I wonder if the minister can give us a sense…. He talked about that being a major issue in dealing with the Interior Health Authority. It's probably a smaller issue in Vancouver Coastal Health, although Vancouver Coastal Health has other demands. We'll be talking about mental health services, where they have a huge burden of demands on them now.

I wonder if the minister can comment on the differing levels of ALC throughout the health authorities.

Hon. G. Abbott: We do have those numbers; we just don't have them here. I will commit to providing them to the member. I would say this, though. There is a pretty strong correlation between, often, the number of people who are really needing alternative levels of care but who are holding down an acute care bed until that either residential care or assisted-living bed is available….

The big difference is across the province. Generally, the variance will be by the percentage of elderly population that exists in a given area or region. I know that for my own home constituency hospital, Shuswap Lake General Hospital, the percentage of acute care beds that are ALC has been at times pretty high — at times, I think, even over 50 percent — because of a very strong seniors population. Predictably, there's pressure on acute care beds by ALC patients.

Similarly, Vernon is like that. Kelowna is like that — and I think, at times, the southern Vancouver Island. They have a very high percentage of population over 65 on south Island and, again, probably comparable kinds of pressures.

I think the pressures tend to be less in Vancouver Coastal, for the reasons we talked about earlier — which are that, generally, while the population is growing, it tends to be a younger population, as opposed to some other areas in the province where, because they're particularly attracted from a retirement perspective, sooner or later one gets a lot of pressure in terms of need for residential care capacity. Until that exists, there's often going to be pressure on the acute care capacity.

A. Dix: I wanted to ask the minister about the innovation fund. There were a whole bunch of projects last year. The minister might say that part of the reason, presumably, that they've given the fund a two-year funding commitment this time around is a little bit of the problem that we saw in the announcement of a fund and the need to both get programs decided and get programs up and running and then, in some cases, to shut programs down.

The minister will be aware that there was an emergency room program at Royal Inland Hospital that I think, if I'm not mistaken, started in January and helped, at least according to Royal Inland, with the problem but was shut down in March. That doesn't seem to be very innovative as a way of having programs managed.

So I wanted to ask the minister, first of all, on the first-year innovation fund programs, those funded in 2007-2008: are some, most, all, any of those programs continuing on? I mean, some of them may have improved procedures and are now just brought into the main activity of the health authority of the hospital or whatever. But how many of those innovation fund programs were one-time-specific — were started and then disbanded, or started and had their impact and ended? And how many of them are ongoing in terms of the funding?

Hon. G. Abbott: The health innovation fund was dedicated to looking at potential innovations in the

health care system and then testing out those potential innovations through a series of pilot projects. Through the health innovation fund, some 51 pilot projects were undertaken across the province. Some of them involved emergency departments; some of them involved primary care models; some involved mental health, new Canadian or immigrant services — just a broad, broad range of different pilot projects undertaken.

I think that it would be fair to say that we were very pleased with the success of the health innovation fund program. But the purpose of a pilot project is to determine whether, for a particular facility or for the province as a whole, some project is worthy of continuing or not. One doesn't go into a pilot project assuming that all of them are going to be as successful as one would hope in order to continue them.

In the case of the health innovation fund projects, some 51 were undertaken, and I'm pleased to advise the member that the majority of those projects are continuing. I don't have a precise number for him, but we'll get that for him when we can. It's fair to say that a majority of those pilot projects have been successful enough as innovations that we are continuing to see them do their work.

There is currently an evaluation report being finalized on all of those 51. That report will look at the efficacy of the different pilot projects. Were they successful? Were they unsuccessful? If so, why?

In the case that the member referenced, Royal Inland Hospital…. There were a couple of pilots that were undertaken at Royal Inland Hospital. One involved the clinical decision unit. I'm advised that the clinical decision unit was, in fact, successful. What they're doing now is relocating the clinical decision unit to an area that is more proximate to the emergency department. I guess it was up on a different floor and was less effective because it was not situated close to the emergency department, so they're moving it. That pilot was successful.

The so-called hurry-up beds for Royal Inland Hospital were found to be less useful or efficacious. Therefore, it's not continuing.

The fundamental point here is that when you do a pilot project, it is to test the proposition. To say that it is some kind of cut or some kind of reduction after one tests a pilot project and it worked less well than hoped, I think, is not an appropriate way to characterize it.

I think that overall we're pleased with this. We're always looking for innovations that will help us build a stronger health care system.

A. Dix: The minister referred to an evaluation report. Will the ministry be making that report public? Or, at least, would the ministry or the minister be prepared to share the evaluation report? I think in a broad sense, it's not just an issue of, I guess, whether they're shared with us — although we'd be very interested to see them — but the extent to which they would be shared with professionals.

In some cases — if you have an innovative program, and it doesn't work…. I agree with the minister that sometimes not everything has to work and not everything is going to work. You can learn from its lack of success in some cases. You can learn from its success in other cases.

The evaluation reports. Will they be shared broadly in the health care system, and will they be shared publicly so that we can see, we can assess — in terms of where we might want to go in future — the quality of those pilot projects?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, the report will absolutely be shared with all British Columbians, including health care professionals.

What we want to do through our innovations program is try to ensure that whenever we can identify something that will strengthen the health care system generally…. It may have been piloted in Fraser Health or it may have been piloted in Northern Health, but where we see an innovation that we believe could be a best practice across all jurisdictions, we undertake through a variety of means to try to ensure that what is initially an innovation does become a best practice where applicable to health authorities.

One of the things that we have done in the Ministry of Health recently is to have an innovations division within the Ministry of Health. We'll be undertaking our annual best practices conference, an annual innovations conference, looking at the experience nationally and internationally and provincially of successes. Then as we identify…. There are a number of them that come to mind, because there's been some really great work done by the health authorities in this area. Pain management and residential care was one that I recall a very, very good presentation on from Fraser Health last year at our first innovations conference.

When we understand how we can better manage pain issues in residential care, then goal is to share that information among all health authorities and then try to drive that as a best practice among all health authorities. We can do that by collecting and sharing that information. We try to get copies of video presentations and distribute those among health authorities, that sort of thing.

Consistent with that, as the work is being completed on the evaluation of the health innovation fund pilot projects, one of the things we'll want to do is to disseminate as widely as possible that information in hopes that the best of those things will be adopted by the health authorities.

Lord knows the pressures are not going away, so what we have to do when we know that we've got pressures is have the best possible management of all the resources we can deploy in the health care system. The health innovation fund was about that, and the work we're doing currently in the ministry is about that. What we'll be doing in the future in either the transformation projects or the other funds that we have will be to drive that change across the system.

A. Dix: As the minister knows, other provinces have adopted a model of a quality council. Some of that was suggested in the Conversation on Health. I'm wondering what the minister thinks of that model.

Hon. G. Abbott: I just want to be sure that I answer the right question for the member, because that's always…. I'm presuming the question is around the patient safety council.

A. Dix: We're talking about driving innovation in the health care system. As you know, in Saskatchewan they have gone to a quality council model, which is independent, though it reports, I think, in that case to the Minister of Health. I don't think that it reports to the Legislature.

That was recommended by some people in several reports dating back, both in the Romanow process and in the Conversation on Health. The minister talked about driving innovation. I'm wondering whether he thought the creation of such a quality council would assist in that purpose here in British Columbia.

Hon. G. Abbott: Thank you. I think that we've got right. There are different aspects to this. In the case of British Columbia, in terms of innovation and best practices, we believe that the most effective mechanism to do that is an innovations branch in the ministry, which will work with our corresponding officials in the health authorities to try to ensure we drive as much as we can those innovative changes in managing resources within hospitals and other health facilities. So that's the innovations piece.

But as a parallel to that, we have also been very impressed by the work that was done by Dr. Doug Cochrane and others in the patient safety task force. They undertook some very remarkable work around the safety of medical devices, around infection control and management and other issues like that. On the area particularly around patient safety we will be putting in place, through the legislative agenda this spring, a patient safety council. We're hoping that Dr. Cochrane will lead it. He and his team have done some remarkable work.

That, in a kind of parallel way, is about innovation too, but it focuses on issues related to patient safety. But I think that both pieces will work very well together. In fact, at one of our first innovation conferences we had Dr. Cochrane and Dr. Innes and others who did that work reporting out on how they believed we would be able to move to better infection control, better management of the safety of devices and improve patient safety overall — all of that. I think it is a good model. At least, you know, we're always looking for changes that will enhance the model.

The opposition Health critic asked about the ALC days in different health authorities. I won't go through this entirely, but it is fair to say that there are some pretty dramatic differences, both over time and among health authorities, in terms of ALC days per 1,000 population, age-standardized. Overall, we have seen considerable improvement in ALC days and that's, I suspect, in direct proportion to the changes that we have made — the incremental resources we have added in terms of residential care and assisted living.

It was on average 95.1 ALC days per 1,000 age-standardized in 2001-2002, with a low of 72.8 in the Interior and a high of 152.5 in Northern. In '06-07 the number had been reduced down to 65.4 ALC days per 1,000 population from 95.1 five years earlier. The Northern is still the highest, and now Vancouver Coastal is the lowest, but overall there has been a substantial reduction in those ALC days per 1,000 population.

A. Dix: We're going to go at the Vancouver Island Health Authority. Just one more question that maybe the minister or his staff can send some information over on. There is a significant increase in FTEs in the Ministry of Health this year according to the budget. If they could just, sort of, send the explanation, which I'm sure they have, in terms of where those are and what they are.

In the meantime, my colleague from North Island and my colleague from Alberni-Qualicum are going to ask some questions about the Vancouver Island Health Authority.

C. Trevena: I have some questions for the minister about the Vancouver Island Health Authority, particularly as it relates to the north Island. I've canvassed these with the minister both in question period and in meetings.

I did want to ask a little bit further about the plans for the regional hospital. I know that the minister is very aware of this and it's gone back to VIHA. VIHA at its board meeting, I believe it was in March, said that they were going to be consulting people about the next stage and be reporting back in September, and nobody has heard anything since. I was wondering if the minister had any idea what was happening in the health authority with the regional hospital these days.

Hon. G. Abbott: The Vancouver Island Health Authority continues its discussions and deliberations around the issue of a proposed regional hospital or alternatives to a proposed regional hospital for the north Island. The challenge has been, to this point, to identify a proposal which would not only enjoy the support of the Vancouver Island Health Authority and the residents that it serves but also enjoy the support of the Comox-Strathcona regional hospital district.

As the member knows well from living this movie, the proposal that VIHA put forward for the north Island involved a new regional facility with a broader range of resources and a broader range of skills and specialties than would be possible in the two current community hospitals in Comox and Campbell River.

VIHA engaged with a variety of parties around the possibility of a regional hospital located somewhere between Comox and Campbell River. There was, I would say, a fair degree of consensus around the concept of a regional hospital until a location for that regional hospital was advanced and VIHA proposed Dove Creek as the potential home for that regional hospital.

When Dove Creek was put forward — I think in large measure because Dove Creek is closer to Comox than it is to Campbell River — the consensus very quickly evaporated around the notion of a regional hospital. As a consequence, the support of the Comox-Strathcona regional hospital district disappeared. Their proposed 40 percent funding support for a regional hospital disappeared.

At this point I don't think there is a lot of clarity around whether VIHA should continue with a regional hospital concept, perhaps in a different location, or with a regional hospital in the same proposed location at Dove Creek or whether everyone should go back to the drawing board and come up with proposals for the regeneration of what are aging facilities both in Comox and Campbell River.

I think there are lots more questions than there are answers at this point. I do know that Vancouver Island Health Authority is very mindful of these issues and is working, hopefully, towards a future resolution to these matters.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for his very full answer, but I was wondering about the discussions. He mentioned that VIHA is having discussions about this, and I know that doctors haven't heard from him, at least in Campbell River. The city council hasn't heard. Nobody has really heard from VIHA.

So who is involved in the discussions, particularly at a time when Campbell River Hospital — which is really a regional hospital in everything but name, because it very much serves the communities of the west and north Island — is seeing parts of it shut down that people had expected were going to be outpatient units or clinics? That was what VIHA had explained was going to happen.

I refer specifically to the former Sunshine Lodge. The seniors at Sunshine Lodge will be moved to New Horizons, a new facility in town. But the actual physical area of Sunshine Lodge was going to be used for other activities in the hospital, and that's obviously causing some concern. We're seeing parts of the hospital close down, and administration seems to have moved out as well.

There's a little concern about what's actually happening to the hospital at the time. There are some sort of discussions going on, and no one knows who VIHA is having the discussions with.

Hon. G. Abbott: I think it's fair to say that when there has been a rejection of a proposal that has been put forward by VIHA in terms of Dove Creek regional hospital, they need to carefully consider what options they should take forward for public consideration in the next round. That's not a simple equation.

I think they will need to think about, again, what the advantages are to a regional hospital versus two community hospitals. In the scenario of a regional hospital, they need to think about whether it's at Dove Creek or Black Creek or some other location on the north Island. They need to answer the residual questions about what remains in the Comox and Campbell River hospitals. There are lots of issues.

I think the discussion is more internally focused around considerations of options at this point versus going out and trying to engage the public again on those issues. It would probably be premature to engage the public again around those issues until VIHA has an opportunity to work through what options exist, what ones are workable or viable, and then, when they have concluded that, going at an appropriate time back to the local governments and public and so on and engaging on those points.

C. Trevena: Glad to hear that they're back looking at options. As I say, there is a clear concern with closures of part of the hospital facility. I'd just like to remind the minister that when he says we're talking about aging facilities, we're also talking about aging facilities in other parts of B.C. In question period today he mentioned, and I was quite heartened to hear, the willingness to put $100,000 for Vernon, which I understand is quite an old hospital.

There is clearly commitment there from the Ministry of Health to put money into buildings that are not brand-spanking-new. It would be very heartening if that sort of money was coming up to the north Island as well. I wonder whether there is still going to be the option there of investing in upgrading. I know that we're still having discussions about what the options are, but the investments in the upgrading.

Hon. G. Abbott: I had a moment of bliss when the member referenced a $100,000 investment, because it has been a tragically long time since we have talked in those numbers for capital investments. It's $100 million in investment for Vernon Jubilee Hospital.

A north Island regional hospital would be apt to be considerably larger in terms of costs than $100 million. A regional hospital, were it to be constructed, would be a very significant investment for the province of British Columbia and a very significant investment for the regional hospital districts, which would be contributing 40 percent of the capital cost to such a facility.

The issue, though, is not one exclusively of capital investment. The issue is also one of the health professionals and support staff that can be attracted to a facility. One of the things that one is able to do with a regional hospital is…. Because the range of procedures and specialties and so on that can be offered there is so much broader than at a community hospital, the ability to recruit is actually much stronger for a regional hospital than it is for a community hospital.

Often medical professionals will come to community hospitals because they are really attracted for family or lifestyle reasons to a smaller operation, and that's a great thing, because we need to have those individuals at community hospitals to provide care. But there are many health professionals who want to be able to work in their specialty area, and a regional hospital does provide that opportunity.

Again, this is not a simple equation for Vancouver Island Health Authority. They need to do a lot of work around this, and they need, at an appropriate time, to continue that work with the local governments and other people, particularly the health care professionals in Comox, Campbell River and elsewhere on the north Island.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for correcting me on the $100 million for Vernon. But that is for upgrading the existing hospital, and that's what would be very healthy to have — upgrading the Campbell River district hospital rather than creating a new hospital. That was the purpose of my question.

I'm very mindful that I have a lot of colleagues who want to ask, so I will move on. The minister mentions that it's easier to recruit health professionals through a regional facility. I think that the minister would be heartened to know that Campbell River, although it had a crisis with the ICU last year, actually finds it not too difficult to recruit doctors. The hospital is in the lucky position usually of having the doctors and the specialists it needs because people like working there, and they like that hospital, despite its physical state. That isn't the driving factor, at least for Campbell River.

However, for the north Island, the real north Island, there is certainly a huge issue of doctor shortages. I think the minister is well aware, and I raised it last week with him, of shortages both in Port McNeill and in Port Hardy, and we have talked in the past about problems in Port Alice. In Port Alice now there is the alternative payment method for the doctor there.

I wanted to just canvass the minister briefly. Was the policy for recruiting new doctors…? I know that one doctor in the north Island has spent $15,000 of his own money in trying to recruit a doctor to come and work there. The doctors in the north Island have been told by VIHA that VIHA is not in the business of helping them find doctors to replace when there is a gap. So I wondered if the minister could explain: who is really responsible for finding doctors for rural communities?

Hon. G. Abbott: The distinction there is recruitment to work within a private clinic versus work within a hospital facility. Not surprisingly, the health authorities won't undertake recruitment if a doctor in private practice wants to get a new partner in that practice. They would be doing the recruitment there.

Generally, though, through Health Match B.C. and other initiatives, other programs, there's a tremendous amount of recruitment in this province for doctors and nurses and so on. I know that the Vancouver Island Health Authority is certainly no exception to that. There's extensive recruitment provincially, nationally and internationally for both physicians and nurses for the north Island. That work is constantly ongoing.

What I understand at this point in terms of medical staff shortages in the Mount Waddington region is that there's one vacancy out of five for physicians at Port Hardy, there are close to three FTE nursing vacancies out of 11 in Port Hardy, one vacancy for a physician out of five at Port McNeill, one nursing vacancy out of 11 for Port McNeill, and so on.

So there's lots of work underway to try to do that. We have, for example, a relatively new program that goes under the acronym FPs4B.C., a nice catchy title for Family Physicians for B.C. What that new program does is provide up to $100,000 typically for a young medical graduate from UBC or elsewhere to locate a new practice in an historically under-serviced community in the province, and I suspect all of these probably qualify as historically under-serviced communities. We have that.

We've enjoyed some success with FPs4B.C., but it is just one of, I think, a number of programs. Around $67 million, I believe, is expended on recruitment and retention efforts in British Columbia today. So it's not for lack of trying that we haven't all the positions filled on the north Island. There are many, many initiatives.

I'm sure the member from Lillooet can equally and rightly point to Princeton and the physician shortages they've had there. Clearwater's got issues. Chase has had issues. Armstrong has issues. There are a number. So I think British Columbia's done reasonably well in terms of filling those vacancies. It's a very, very nice place to live and raise a family and all of that, and I suspect that's why Campbell River has done pretty well in this. There are a surprising number of physicians who also like to fish for salmon, and there's no better place on earth to do that than Campbell River. So that works out well.

It is challenging, but we've got lots of programs underway to try to fill the gaps where they exist.

C. Trevena: I think that one of the issues of recruitment though is that, particularly in a small community, if a doctor has to recruit for their practice, that person will also be working in the hospital. So they are effectively recruiting for the hospital.

In Port Hardy, Port McNeill, the pressures have come to bear because of the emergency room being closed. The doctors are under pressure. I have heard that there are three down in McNeill, three down in Hardy. The issue of nurses. You were talking about nurses who are coming back from retirement at the moment to work there, so it's pushing to the limits.

I'm mindful of other colleagues who want to ask questions, so I will go quickly on to the other north Island issue. We were very hopeful that there was going to be a long-term care facility, that 11 beds were going to be built in Port Hardy. It wasn't going to be ideal. It wasn't going to be enough for everybody. Now we've heard that those 11 beds are on hold because of

I would hope that the minister is working with VIHA to make sure that we can get beds at a cost that is more acceptable to everybody and that can be built in the nearest possible future for all the people on the north Island.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member pretty much has it right in respect of the Port Hardy Hospital residential care project. We had anticipated or estimated this project for 11 residential care and seven assisted-living units, at $3.6 million. The final came in at $5.8 million. That is way over what had been anticipated and is reflective of escalation of construction costs, I presume, particularly in more rural or remote settings like Port Hardy. The VIHA decision is not to proceed with this project at this time. Their allocation of beds or units under the 5,000-bed program will, however, be found elsewhere.

C. Trevena: My final question to the minister, just to raise it with him. I've written to him about the issue of speech language pathologists on the north Island. In my letter, I said that there was just one speech language pathologist available for Nanaimo and north. I've now learned that there are two. However, this is still inadequate. These are two in the health sector. There are none in the community. If the minister can't answer this now — as I say, there is a letter with him; it's an update from the letter — I would hope for a response and some positive dialogue on how we can ensure more SLPs for areas outside Victoria.

S. Fraser: Hello to the minister and his staff. I see some of you got some sun this weekend, so that's a good thing too. I have a number of issues and very limited time, so I'm going to try to be as brief as possible.

The psychiatric ward in Port Alberni. A week ago the notification or the shutdown of that ward's seven beds was of a great concern to the community members, of course, but also to health care professionals, the RCMP and a number of different groups that are affected when a decision like that is made. Can the minister explain what process would happen to actually look at the ramifications and the fallout of the decision to shut down this psychiatric ward?

Hon. G. Abbott: Although I like the idea, I'd never give up this portfolio for anything. It's fabulous and fascinating.

The issue of the closure of the psychiatric beds at the hospital is of concern to us and to Vancouver Island Health Authority. My understanding is that the change was not something that VIHA welcomed at all. There was one psychiatrist who moved, I understand, to Comox and is carrying on a practice at Comox, leaving just one resident psychiatrist for the hospital. It is difficult to manage a full psychiatric program at the hospital, with one psychiatrist. That's not to say that psychiatric services aren't still available. They are, through the one remaining psychiatrist at the hospital.

If the RCMP have an incident involving a patient with a psychosis or some other issue, they can still utilize the hospital as a resource. I understand that if the issue is not resolved at the hospital, there would likely be a transfer of the patient to Comox, but this should not mean that the RCMP will have to transport. I understand that the transport will be undertaken by the health authority to deal with it.

Further, the Vancouver Island Health Authority continues to recruit, and recruit aggressively, to try to find a psychiatrist to fill that vacant spot at the hospital and in the community programs. There is, as the member probably knows, a provincial, national and international shortage of psychiatrists.

This is challenging to find one on short notice, but VIHA is certainly trying and will continue to try to deal with that. In the interim, that's the arrangement that's in place.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I guess one thing the minister didn't touch on was the level of consultation. I mean, each community has their own unique needs. In some ways these are not cookie-cutter-type things.

As the minister knows, the Alberni Valley is somewhat isolated. There's only one highway access in. The West Coast General Hospital provides the psychiatric beds that are necessary for the entire west coast also. That incorporates almost 6,000 people — Nuu-chah-nulth communities and Ucluelet, Tofino and Bamfield, for that matter.

The loss of one psychiatrist is certainly significant, but the minister knows that most of the psychiatric issues are dealt with by the GPs — 75 percent. I have consulted with the medical staff there. These general practitioners know most of the people who are having problems — psychological trauma, psychiatric problems. They know them well, and they know how to deal with them. So the loss of the ward was not necessary with the loss of one psychiatrist. That's according to the health care professionals that I've spoken with.

The fact that there can be transfers…. To the minister: you've got to know that there are remote communities serviced here. So if you're taking someone out of their traditional territory — say, Ahousaht from the west coast — who is in deep psychiatric trauma, for them to be actually removed over — it's called over the hump — Highway 4 to Comox or possibly Duncan, far away from their own support systems, far away from their traditional territories, will not be in the best interests of the patient, I would submit.

Again, I've looked over everything that led to this decision, and I saw no communication to deal with these issues locally. So can the minister comment on that?

Hon. G. Abbott: The point the member makes is a legitimate one and an important one. The challenge of a shortage of psychiatrists has been chronic in Northern Health. There are many areas in Northern Health where either the patient volumes, the remoteness or other issues have made it difficult to have an appropriate balance of psychiatrists per 1,000 population. It has been a big, big challenge for Northern Health.

As a consequence, we have also…. A remarkable thing about Northern Health is that they develop programs to meet the need, notwithstanding those kinds of challenges. We just don't see the same kinds of challenges in Vancouver, where there's a far larger number of psychiatrists per 1,000 of population than we would see in Northern Health or, in this case, on portions of Vancouver Island.

So in the absence of that, the Ministry of Health has worked with health authorities to try to undertake programs whereby, as the member noted, general practitioners or family physicians can get an additional module of training so that they can deal with some of those psychiatric issues within their communities. That is what I understand is going to be undertaken with respect to West Coast General Hospital. We will be building a mental health outreach and support service for the family physicians so that they can manage more of those issues in community.

It is, perhaps, in some respects a less optimal solution than having more psychiatrists. But in the absence of more psychiatrists, recognizing that there's an incredible demand for them and recognizing that, all things being equal, a lot more of them are residing in large urban areas than in small community or remote areas, we need to build the kind of primary care alternative to the presence of sufficient psychiatrists.

So that's what I understand will be undertaken in respect of Port Alberni and West Coast General Hospital. I think that will be helpful during whatever interim period there is between VIHA's undertaking additional recruitment and success of that recruitment.

S. Fraser: I submit that it wasn't necessary to close down the psych ward, and the fear in the community and for myself, as the representative, the MLA for the West Coast General Hospital in this case, is that we might not get the ward back. I'll explain the train of thought on that very quickly.

There are surgical cancellations routinely out of the West Coast General. There aren't enough acute care beds. The acute care beds are often being taken up by people who are long-term care. There aren't enough long-term care beds. They are available for rental by VIHA. There's Fir Park, and there are beds available at Echo, but we're hearing more and more that these may lose funding. That's one of the questions I'll be asking after this.

With that dearth of acute care beds in the West Coast General Hospital, if seven beds disappear out of the psych ward, which is being shut down even though the needs are still there, those will just get pulled into that vacuum of needs that are there because of the lack of long-term care beds that we should have seen over the last few years.

So what guarantees can the minister give to ensure that the psych ward will, indeed, not be lost forever? Does he have any time line on when we might be able to see those beds brought back for the necessity that they are, specific to psychiatric care?

Hon. G. Abbott: The beds won't be returned, because they're not going to be taken away. I'm advised that the seven psychiatry beds in the hospital will be converted to medical beds. As a result, there will be no net loss of beds at West Coast General Hospital.

Again, it would be preferable, without a doubt, to have those seven beds be psychiatric beds rather than medical beds. But in the alternative, there is not going to be capacity lost. It's going to be just different capacity.

Now, I know that the member has made this point before in question period — about how he believes that VIHA's decision to close the psychiatric beds because of the loss of the one psychiatrist, leaving only one psychiatrist, was a wrong decision. I don't know on what basis the member forms that conclusion. I understand this to be a matter of patient safety in terms of the health authority. If they're going to be providing a service and claim to be providing a service — i.e., psychiatric services — they need to be able to backstop that with the medical professionals who are capable of delivering the service.

If they don't have the ability, because they've moved on to Comox or whatever the reason is, to deliver the service that they claim to be providing and something goes wrong, patient safety could be compromised by that decision. That's why I'm not going to second-guess the Vancouver Island Health Authority in terms of what they did.

They lost one of their two psychiatrists. They are working as hard as they can to replace that psychiatrist, who moved on of his own volition, I understand. I think it would be inappropriate for me to second-guess the Vancouver Island Health Authority.

I think they're attempting to do the right thing, and they're converting the beds to medical beds. They're building their community programs to try to assist the family physicians in dealing with these matters. They're recruiting. I think they're doing the right stuff. Is it less than optimal? Yeah, it is, but they are doing the right stuff, and hopefully that matter will be resolved as quickly as possible.

S. Fraser: The minister may not be willing to second-guess VIHA, but I am. I base that not on any medical knowledge but as a critic, in this case, of their decision. My criticisms arise from their lack of consultation with the community. I have consulted with health care professionals. I have a different take on it, and so do the health care professionals in the Alberni Valley and on the west coast, who are also affected, as does the RCMP. We can agree to disagree, and I've got a lot more I could ask on this, but I don't have time.

I'm going to move right into palliative care and hospice. I attended a breakfast meeting earlier this year in the spring, and the minister spoke at it, acknowledging the importance of hospice — quality end-of-life care. That's something that's near and dear to me.

In Port Alberni after many, many years of something of a battle, actually, with a health authority, we have got Ty Watson House open. It has been very well received by the community, and the level of support, which was there even sitting empty, has greatly increased. It has served the community well in the few short months it has been open; 17 people have had the benefit of that facility — quality end-of-life care.

I'll go right to the provincial framework that's two years old now, actually — May 2006. It recognizes the value that hospice societies bring to the delivery of quality end-of-life care. The minister is aware of that. I don't need to quote from that.

Now, I raised this in estimates a year ago, and I've got my response from the minister from a year ago. It's great to say, from the minister at a breakfast, that he's supportive and he understands the importance of quality end-of-life care through hospice. It's also great to have a place open.

There are nine stand-alone hospices on Vancouver Island outside of the capital region, and none of them have core funding. Ty Watson House does not have core funding. So while there's verbal support from the minister, and that's great, I see nothing in this budget and the service plan that leads us to believe there is any core funding forthcoming. That is a problem.

There was a proposal put forward quite a long time ago now for $450,000 as core funding for nine stand-alone hospices outside of the capital region. It's $450,000 by nine, so we're talking about $50,000 per year per hospice to handle all the administration and the bookkeeping, all of these necessary support costs and administrative costs to run a hospice. Will the minister commit today to providing those funds and/or to responding to the hospice societies?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member doesn't see, he claims, the evidence of government's commitment to hospice and palliative care in the province. I'd be pleased to advise the member of that evidence.

When we took office in 2001, there were 57 government-funded or government-supported hospice beds in the province. There are currently 244 — that is, today, 244 government-supported hospice beds in British Columbia. Some 28 of those are in Vancouver Island Health Authority, 55 in Vancouver Coastal, 78 in Fraser Health, five in Northern Health and 78 in Interior Health, for a total of 244.

I'm not quick enough on a calculator; perhaps the member would want to do this. He could take 57 and compare it to 244 and see some kind of fantastic increase, like 300 percent, over just a few years. So we're doing much more than just talking about it; we're actually supporting those hospice and palliative care units and programs. I think that's important.

We do believe that palliative care is a very important part of the continuum, and where it's possible, we'll want to continue to build that continuum. I think there has been lots of remarkable work done in this area by volunteers over time. I know that there have been some differences of opinion about just how the model should look.

Should palliative care be appended to residential care? There are pretty strong arguments to be made for that in some cases. In other cases — and Ty Watson was a good example of this — we've seen where the local society argued in favour of a model where the palliative care was disassociated from or not a part of any existing seniors care or residential care for the community. It was a pretty expensive model. I was glad to work with the member to resolve some of the issues around how Ty Watson House would be utilized in the local and VIHA palliative care system. I'm pleased to hear from the member that it's working well.

But I did want to correct him on the evidence not existing with respect to government's commitment. Again, if palliative care was the only thing that we had pressures on, it would be pretty easy to have an even bigger number for palliative care beds than we have. But palliative care is one of dozens of areas of health care delivery where we have pressures. So we're continuing to build that continuum of services, and we will.

Now, just a little earlier the member for Burnaby-Edmonds asked about the Cedars addiction treatment program. I am pleased to advise that Fraser Health has purchased beds at the Cedars addiction treatment program for young women in Burnaby for the past two years. This is an interim measure until the crossing at Keremeos project is completed. As you know, there have been some significant announcements by the Premier with respect to the Keremeos project, both on the capital and the operating side. The Keremeos project will provide new long-term residential treatment for youth challenged by addiction.

It will be the first of its kind in British Columbia. We've never had such a treatment facility before. Vancouver Coastal, Fraser Health and Interior Health are partnering together to purchase beds in Keremeos once the facility is completed. In the interim, Cedars is providing some services to us. In 2007-08 the value of Fraser Health's contract was $84,000 with the Cedars, which brought beds for ten young women. We are expecting comparable amounts to be provided in the current year or until the crossing at Keremeos is up and running.

S. Fraser: I take issue…. The minister is suggesting that Ty Watson is an expensive model for a stand-alone hospice. It is not. It was an expensive model not to have it. VIHA spun their wheels on this for four years — in essence, misleading the community expecting that it would be open. The community had provided this facility. It's first class. The capital costs were all covered by the community for the community, knowing exactly what was important.

The stand-alone hospice that it is, is affirmed and supported in the end-of-life section of the provincial

framework for end-of-life care. The minister has met palliative patients. I've brought Maria Castiglione to his office here. She took up one of the psych beds at the West Coast General, not quality end-of-life care. She never got to spend a moment In Ty Watson, because it had still not been opened even after that many years. I credit her with a large portion of the work done to get the place open.

Ty Watson House is effective. It utilizes the community, and the building was built. As opposed to a $1,100-a-day acute care bed in the hospital, those palliative patients can have quality end-of-life care delivered in a home-like setting for a fraction of that cost. So it is a very effective model. What we need is….

VIHA, like the health authority model under this government, is an administrative body. There's a cost to that. Just look at the budget for VIHA. Now, if the minister doesn't believe that there's an administrative cost to quality end-of-life care through hospice, which is affirmed by his own provincial framework on end of life, then he should look again.

There's an administrative cost to providing quality end-of-life care. The Vancouver Island hospice societies have come up with a very, very, small figure to deliver that service, and it's $450,000 for the entire Vancouver Island. I don't need the statistics about the money that's going into Victoria. I'm talking about outside of the capital region. We need capital funding, and $50,000 per hospice would do that.

Will the minister consider the application put forward by the Vancouver Island hospice societies? Their proposal was a reasonable one. It was costed. It was laid out very well. They have not received a response from the minister, and I don't think that's appropriate.

Hon. G. Abbott: In fairness to the Vancouver Island Health Authority, their concern with Ty Watson House was not with the capital cost of it. The member is right that the community had raised the capital funds for that facility. Their concern was with the ongoing operating costs of a facility which was freestanding, which was distinct and geographically separate from both the hospital and the residential care facilities, which I understand are near the hospital.

The member used the comparator of a freestanding hospice versus the daily cost of an acute care bed. I guess a freestanding hospice is going to win every day in terms of that comparison. The more valid comparison is between a freestanding hospice versus a hospice which is appended to a residential care facility where some of the ongoing operational costs can be absorbed by economies of scale.

That's the argument, Member. In fairness to the Vancouver Island Health Authority — and it's not simple or easy for Vancouver Island Health Authority — I'm sure they are giving due and appropriate consideration to the request for $450,000. But Vancouver Island Health Authority has lots of pressures on their budgets just as Fraser Health does, just as Vancouver Coastal Health does and just as every other health authority does. They need to make the wisest possible appropriation of the dollars that are provided to them. I'm sure they will give due consideration to the proposal that the member referenced.

S. Fraser: And noting the time — my time, that is, because I'm out of it — I have a number of issues that I want to touch on. I'll mention one verbally, and then I'm going to have to do the rest in writing, I'm afraid. I thank the minister for indulging me there.

In the last year we have seen very, very innovative work done by the Coastal Health Care Committee on the west coast for Tofino General Hospital, which is the hospital for Tofino, Ucluelet and five first nations' Nuu-chah-nulth communities — and 20,000 tourists, for that matter, on an August day. So very, very significant.

They have a list of goals, priorities and recommendations. They include the medical and nursing staff challenges that we're seeing out there, as the minister is aware of; support for an alternative form of physician compensation that is competitive, and maybe with the rural local program as a suggestion; aggressive recruitment for three full-time-equivalent positions, which could consist of long-term locums, for that matter, and aggressive recruitment of a full-time-equivalent RN and one more casual RN for the Tofino General.

They continue to support housing for supplemental and weekend ER physicians — because again, the staffing levels on the west coast are difficult — and last but not least, they provide housing for locums covering local physicians' practices during leave for vacation or continuing medical education.

So there's a list of recommendations. I know that the minister and his staff have this report. It was delivered to VIHA, so it's available. But it touches on a number of issues. Of course, since this report has been in the working stages, we've lost obstetric services at the Tofino General. In the West Coast General in Port Alberni we've just lost the psych ward, and we've already lost lab work there. In the Tofino Hospital we've lost obstetrics, and we're at risk of losing doctors and nursing staff. So this is a crisis on the west coast.

The minister, I'm sure, is aware that this is of great concern to my constituents, and it should be of concern to everyone because a lot of people travel there internationally. If the minister could comment, that would be great. In the meantime, I will provide him with the rest of the questions that I have.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll just comment very briefly. The member and I have had an opportunity to talk about these issues before, and I've explained to him that Tofino is one of my favourite places on the face of the earth. It is, I'm sure, a fabulous place to live and to work. For a variety of reasons, though, it has been challenging to recruit and retain some medical staff there. I know that Vancouver Island Health Authority is very cognizant of those challenges, and I'm sure they welcome the thoughtful suggestions that come in the report.

This is not a simple issue to resolve, because Tofino's location, while extraordinarily beautiful from a natural perspective, is not close to regional hospitals and the like, so it is challenging. But I'm sure there are some thoughtful ideas contained in the report that will be helpful to VIHA in trying to resolve those issues.

H. Lali: I guess we'll turn our attention to one of my most favourite places, and that is Yale-Lillooet, obviously.

The minister comes from a neighbouring riding to mine, and then my constituency, whether you're talking about some of the communities like Lytton, Lillooet, Hope, Princeton, Keremeos, Merritt and Logan Lake, and soon to be Ashcroft, Cache Creek and Clinton, up in that area of the southern plateau of the Cariboo and the Nicola-Similkameen valleys — all rural areas…. So I just want to focus the minister's attention to the Interior Health Authority and my neck of the woods and, also, his.

We have a number of issues, obviously, as they relate to the regionalization that has taken place several years back, and as a result of that — I'm not trying to make any kind of political comment here — the services actually coming out of the small communities that I mentioned have been regionalized into Princeton, Kamloops, Kelowna, Abbotsford, Chilliwack and these communities that are neighbouring the larger — larger to us, anyway — urban centres.

We've been facing a number of challenges. One of the things, obviously, is a good-news story. The minister was there. It was the Lytton Health Centre, and he was there for the groundbreaking. I wanted to find out, not only about the Lytton Health Centre, but also in terms of long-term care beds — 24 beds that were announced in Merritt. Both buildings are under construction.

I'm just wondering if the minister might give me an idea of the estimated times in terms of the completion dates for the Lytton Health Centre and also the long-term care facility in Merritt.

Hon. G. Abbott: We're trying to get the updated information on the Merritt piece, but maybe I'll start with the Lytton Health Centre.

The member is right. It was very good to see the commitment to investment in the Lytton Health Centre. I understand the concern the member has about some smaller community facilities closing and moving into larger, sometimes regional, facilities. I had two community hospitals close back when I was in opposition in the late 1990s, Armstrong Hospital and Enderby Hospital, so I know a little bit about that — not to make a particularly important political point on it, but I'm not unfamiliar with these issues.

In terms of the Lytton Health Centre, things are proceeding, as I understand it, quite well there. The contract for construction of the new health centre was awarded to Mierau Contractors Ltd. on April 5, 2007. The official groundbreaking, which both the member and I took part in, was July 13, 2007. It is an $8.1 million project, with $6.3 million coming from the province and the remainder coming from the Thompson regional hospital district. Completion remains targeted for fall 2008.

There was one issue that, unfortunately, came to the fore. That revolved around the geothermal heating and cooling system. The mayor of Lytton, as the member knows, raised some concerns, valid or otherwise, with the geothermal heating and cooling system. That resulted in some changes being made there. The health centre is still going to strive to achieve a LEED gold certification for it, but that's been a challenge.

Things seem to be proceeding well. We don't seem to have a note on Merritt long-term care at the moment, but if we don't have it by the time estimates end today, we'll get it to the member by other form.

You know, in terms of the IHA zone and some of the rules they've set down in terms of the fair bed allocation based on population…. A community like Merritt, which is in the heart of the Nicola Valley, has about 16,000 people. So looking at one acute care bed for 1,000 persons, they're looking at 16. There are eight acute care beds, and I know there were eight transition beds that were put in place about a year and a quarter ago, I think it was. The announcement was made at that time.

With the announcement of the long-term care facility, when it's up and running, there's a fear that those transition beds are going to be gone. They're going to be pulled out, even though there's a need there in Merritt simply because of a number of factors — one of them, obviously, being that Merritt is in the centre of a number of highways. There are eight highways that spoke out of Merritt. With the three phases of the Coquihalla, there are a number of accidents that take place, especially during the severe winter conditions and the heavy traffic during the summer.

Merritt's hospital — the Nicola Valley Health Centre there — has about 13,000 ER visits per year. If you compare that to Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops, that's about triple that, but the community is about a tenth of the size of Kamloops. It's an abnormally high number of ER visits. Obviously, the acute care beds…. They have been challenged a number of times where there aren't enough beds for folks to go around.

The fear is, amongst a community that wants the long-term care beds up and running…. Even though the need in Merritt was identified by the IHA itself, it's closer to 50. So 24 coming on board is great news. The fear is that those transition beds are going to be gone once the LTC beds are in place. I just want the minister to comment if that's true, or will he keep the bed limit at 16 at the Nicola Valley health care facility?

Hon. G. Abbott: We're going to have to get back to the member on what Interior Health may be proposing

Presumably, IHA's view about whether any particular beds are extended or not extended will be based on the demand and capacity that exist for the facility. Merritt is a very important hospital for the reasons the member acknowledges, but there are also, of course, limitations around some of the smaller community hospitals in terms of what they can do with trauma patients and the like.

The proximity of Royal Inland Hospital to Merritt is a great advantage to patients. For those patients of lower acuity that can be managed in an acute care bed in Merritt, that's good. But where a higher level of acuity requires transfer, Kamloops is not too far down the road, and there's a very excellent facility in the form of Royal Inland Hospital.

H. Lali: Just a point to make about Merritt. Merritt is developing. It's growing quite rapidly compared to many other small communities in rural British Columbia. The traffic counts are always increasing as well, and that's why you've got a number of big-box stores coming into Merritt, because of the traffic. Obviously, ER visits increase accordingly as well. Four years ago it was 11,000. Now it's up to 13,000 and increasing with time.

There are pressures there, and the case for maintaining 16 beds at the Merritt hospital actually grows with it as well. That's something that I would hope the minister keeps in mind in his deliberations with IHA, to be not in a big hurry to actually pull out the eight transition beds once the LTC beds come on-board. That was just a comment that I wanted to make for the record to bring the minister up to speed on that particular issue.

We have some challenges in Princeton. The minister and I were able to debate that on one of the bills that was before the House. What has happened in Princeton is that they used to do surgeries at one time. They don't. There's no birthing that takes place. It's the same situation, actually, in Merritt as well.

Also, Princeton being much smaller than Merritt, there are some other issues that are at stake. In terms of trying to attract doctors to come to a place like Princeton, we've had some doctors that have been aging and wanting to get out. One of the doctors is Dr. Adams. He has wanted to retire for the past eight years now. He's 73, and he was supposed to retire at 65 — the poor guy. I feel for him, because he cares so much that he has actually kept practising, because of the shortage of doctors. Dr. Whittle is going to be gone pretty quick as well.

I know the community, the mayor and council and the hospital have been working with the ministry and IHA. There are some locums that are in place. They're making do right now, so the situation is stable for the time being. But as the minister and I both know, locums are not the answer. Obviously, we need some doctors to come out there on a permanent basis to solve the problem that we have there.

One of the problems also, obviously — and the doctors and health care professionals will tell you — is that right now there is a shortage of five LPNs and RNs in Princeton. It makes the job tougher for the doctors. One of the things preventing doctors from going there is the fact that they look at it and say that there is not enough support for them in terms of either some of the unfilled positions or the shortages that exist there — not to mention, also, the procedures in education that doctors get at various universities. They want to be able to practise in that.

You'll hear from the doctors' own mouths that one of the reasons they can't attract doctors is that they don't want to come to Princeton and be pill-pushers. That's not a word that I'm inventing. That's a word that you'll hear in a lot of other communities.

I want to ask the minister how he can assist. In terms of questions that other members have asked, he has talked, on a general basis, provincewide. But what can he do specifically for communities like Princeton and, also, in terms of Merritt? There's also a shortage of nurses in Merritt, which is a bigger health centre than the one in Princeton. So the shortage of health care professionals is doctors, LPNs and RNs. What is the minister willing to do and wanting to do to make sure that that situation is alleviated?

Hon. G. Abbott: A few issues to follow up on. In terms of Merritt long-term care, there were 71 beds, effective December of 2007. There's going to be, completed for June 2008, a total of 87 beds for Merritt.

In terms of the issues that the member raises around the kinds of services that can be provided at some of the smaller community hospitals…. The member referenced obstetrics, and that's a good point to raise. Physicians need to perform a certain number of births on an annualized basis in order to ensure that they can maintain their professional competence in that area and to ensure that patient safety can be maintained in that area. That's a challenge, and sometimes we see birthing moved from a smaller hospital to larger hospitals because of that reason.

The member also suggests that locums are not the long-term answer, and I agree. Locums are actually expensive in the system versus doctors that are permanently located in a community. There's been a tremendous amount of work done around recruitment for British Columbia, and particularly for recruitment to some of the rural and remote communities in British Columbia.

We have the Joint Standing Committee on Rural Issues, or JSC, that has been working on a physician recruitment project in order to recruit physicians to rural and underserviced communities. Among the efforts that have been extended around physician recruitment, as an example, for IHA only, there are some 397 physicians who have benefited from the rural retention program. There are eight who are eligible for isolation allowance, 34 have benefited from the rural recruitment incentive fund, and we have 11 physicians funded through the rural recruitment contingency fund.

To the point when this note was generated, there had been only two physicians recruited through the Family Physicians for B.C. program, but I know that

the number is much larger than that now. FPs4BC is a new program, and it has now started to be quite successful. I think the number I saw recently was 56 positions now across the province recruited through FPs4BC, so that's good. Some 45 physicians have been recruited through Health Match B.C. to serve in communities in Interior Health. So there's lots of work that is ongoing.

The member also referenced shortages in some communities of registered nurses and licensed practical nurses. That is true. I think our most recent estimate for nurse vacancies across the province was somewhere around 1,800 or 1,850.

As the member knows, because I've pointed this out a few times in question period, we have almost doubled the number of nurses that we're educating in the province now — since we became government in 2001, some 3,800 incremental nursing education seats in colleges and universities across the province. We're undertaking a three-year RN degree program. The first will start with an intake group this fall at BCIT.

We have many, many different pieces in resolving the health human resources puzzle. Those are just some of them.

H. Lali: I've just got one more question. There are a lot more, but time permits only the last one here. I mentioned a number of….

I've mentioned a number of communities, like Ashcroft, Cache Creek, Merritt, Princeton and all these other communities. Well, surrounding all of these municipalities actually are rural areas — which are unincorporated, most of them — and they fall under the regional districts, as the minister is familiar with.

We have a lot of people who are involved in agriculture in those areas, and a lot of aboriginal people. I've got 29 Indian bands, as they're called, in my constituency, and they are the rings around these municipalities. That's not to mention, also, places like Spences Bridge, Gold Bridge, Bralorne, Coalmont and Tulameen, which are not Indian bands but just the small communities, little outposts, all over.

In terms of rural health, the Ambulance Service obviously is a huge issue. Folks feel that more funding should be provided for the Ambulance Service to cover those rural areas or even accidents on the Coquihalla Highway. The patient transfer to places like Kamloops or Kelowna or other hospitals becomes a little bit difficult in terms of the time lag. There's also an issue surrounding the advanced ambulance crews.

I know that there are complaints coming out of Merritt and some other rural communities in terms of the waiting time that it takes for ambulances to get there. Sometimes it's hours before the transfer actually takes place to places like Kelowna, Kamloops, Abbotsford or Chilliwack. Obviously, this is a problem that needs to be dealt with, especially since there have been vacancies for paramedics that have been unfilled. There were two in Merritt which were on that list that the minister is familiar with.

On behalf of my constituents who live in rural areas — the ranchers, the farmers, the aboriginal people and the folks who just like to live on lakes and that…. It is a huge issue that needs to be addressed. I just want the minister to point out what it is that IHA is willing to do, in terms of my area, to help alleviate the problem of the lack of ambulance attendants as well as, in some places, even the shortage of ambulances themselves.

What is the minister willing to do to make sure that that is rectified so that people can get the effective service they need in order to do the transfer to some of these major hospitals?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll give the member at least a general answer here in terms of his question. I think we have in British Columbia, actually, a very good ambulance service.

B.C. Ambulance Service provides, I think, quite exceptional service. If we compare B.C. Ambulance Service to what exists conceptually somewhere else, perhaps they'd finish second. But I can't think of many instances, in taking comparisons to other parts of Canada, where B.C. Ambulance Service would finish second.

I think it's an excellent service. It's an excellent service because it is an integrated provincial service versus a series of localized services, as it was many years ago. BCAS continues to build. I think it is a very good ambulance service, both ground and air ambulance service, but it is also a service that in many ways can be improved.

The member is right that we have issues with rural and remote recruitment. That is true. There have been some good success stories, though, in terms of recruitment. Just a couple of them, both in Interior Health areas, I think. Maybe one is not. Nakusp had some quite severe shortages of paramedics. BCAS went in. They did some extensive recruiting and were able to overcome the challenges they had there.

Anahim Lake — I'm not sure whether Anahim Lake is resident…. I think it is Interior Health, because it's kind of near Williams Lake. So Anahim Lake is also a recent success story in terms of recruitment and retention.

Interestingly, Alexis Creek continues to have some severe recruitment and retention issues not far down the road. So B.C. Ambulance Service continues to try to build their support model for paramedics. We don't believe we're there yet. We are probably some distance from being there yet, but there have been some great successes for Interior Health and the B.C. Ambulance Service. The critical care transport team, operating out of the Trail hospital has been a great success, and one that has been built over time.

So again, I don't for a moment disagree with the member that this is a system that can be improved. But is it, compared to the reality of ambulance services in other jurisdictions in Canada, a very good one? I would say absolutely it is.

C. Puchmayr: I want to just canvass a little bit on the Royal Columbian Hospital site, and I want to talk a little bit about what we'll call the Labatt site, which is the vacant land next door. The city of New Westminster has already asked the developer to zone in a hospital component in there.

I know that the minister last week did make some reference to an old plan, I think one that showed some document with a picture of a highrise, and I think spoke about something that was planned on the original site. So I'd like to canvass with the minister what the ministry is looking at on that site, especially in view of the fact that this site has available land which…. Very few cities in North America have that much potential for growth on a site that close to an existing hospital.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm always conscious of time and trying to maximize our use of time. We've got some information — hopefully, more specific information — coming with respect to Royal Columbian Hospital here, and the member can canvass that in his subsequent questions.

But I want to say this first of all. I've had numerous discussions with Fraser Health about Royal Columbian. For Fraser Health, Royal Columbian is a very important site. It's a high-end tertiary site for both Fraser Health and for the province. There are procedures performed at Royal Columbian Hospital that aren't performed elsewhere in the province because it is a very high-end, specialized tertiary hospital as well as being a community hospital for New Westminster.

I can also say definitively that for the numbers that Royal Columbian Hospital now serves, its emergency department is undersized. There clearly needs to be reinvestment in the emergency department there. Again, Fraser Health is very conscious of that.

Both for Fraser Health and for the province of British Columbia, Royal Columbian is…. Regeneration and redevelopment are a priority. So we'll be working through planning processes with Fraser Health and with Royal Columbian to develop the most appropriate and efficacious plans for that facility for the future.

C. Puchmayr: With the discussions that are obviously ongoing with respect to that, does the minister have some type of a time line with respect to when some of this could come to fruition that we could possibly share with the person that owns the vacant lot next door, and at the very least with the city council in New Westminster, who were very instrumental, along with Labatt, in securing some land right next door to that hospital?

Hon. G. Abbott: In terms of the so-called Labatt lands, I've had a number of discussions with Mayor Wright of New Westminster city on that issue. I must say that Mayor Wright has been very constructive and very positive in terms of his support and council's support for the potential use of those lands.

I have had some canvassing of that issue with Fraser Health. Sometimes I get a sense that it might be a timely and valuable offer that has been made, but other times I get the sense that perhaps it has not been as valuable, the offer of those lands, as one might hope. But at any rate, I'm sure that is one of the issues that will be worked through in these planning processes.

I'm very, very appreciative of the support Mayor Wright has provided around that issue, particularly in terms of trying to ensure that if the Labatt lands can be a valuable adjunct to any future project, they're protected for those purposes. So I really appreciate the support and leadership of Mayor Wright in respect of that.

I have to say that in terms of a firm time line around when improvements will be undertaken, it is too early in the planning process for us to put time lines around this. There are a number of components that would have to be considered in the planning process. Among them would be, as I mentioned, the emergency department, but also the ICU beds and the allocation of those, acute care beds and, I'm sure, other issues as well.

All of those are, I think, embraced by the planning process, but it is too early to say when different pieces will start to make their way through capital approvals.

C. Puchmayr: My last question, with respect to the land that we call the Labatt site. I don't know if the minister has the information in front of him — I would certainly welcome it, either live or as a document after — with respect to the status of that Labatt land.

I believe it was an acre of land. It was part of a development on the site. It was turned over to the hospital foundation. I just want some clarification.

Does the hospital foundation own the land? Did they sell the land, or did they take cash in lieu of the land? Just to clarify that situation so that maybe there can be some ongoing initiatives on that land currently that are maybe delayed right now because of the confusion as to that land.

Hon. G. Abbott: We don't have detail on that with us here, but we can commit to providing an update on that to the member.

B. Simpson: One short constituency question, and then I'd like to canvass the topic of septic and sewerage system regulations, which falls under the minister's mandate. With respect to constituency, I did send a letter to the minister, and we'd had a conversation about Dr. Aziz and the issue of immigration and credentialing. I'm wondering if the minister has had an opportunity to take a look at that.

Hon. G. Abbott: I just want to respond to the question the member was raising with respect to Dr. Aziz. Dr. Aziz is an internal medicine specialist practising in Quesnel. He is a good example of an international medical graduate who we have the benefit of in British Columbia. Obviously, he's a very valued member of the medical team in Quesnel and for Northern Health, a very valuable member of their team as well.

The issues that Dr. Aziz has raised…. One is around the ability to have his parents come from Iraq. That is challenging, in the sense that immigration is a federal issue. Obviously, there are some issues around that. The second issue, I think, we can work with the member on. That is around the potential fast-track credentialing of Dr. Aziz's wife, who is also, I gather, Dr. Aziz.

We would really welcome if we could get more detail in respect of Mrs. Dr. Aziz and her credentials and so on. This may be an issue that we will be able to resolve with the College of Physicians and Surgeons, but failing that, it may also be an issue that could become a health professions review board issue, subject to the passage of that legislation in the spring session. Certainly, we'd like to do everything we possibly can to assure that both Drs. Aziz are able to practise in Quesnel, or wherever they choose in British Columbia, because they bring a package of skills that should be most welcome to us.

I'd be very pleased to hear more from the member around the issue of her credentials, and then we will ensure that the ministry takes that information forward to work with the college to resolve this issue as quickly as possible.

On the immigration issue, what Dr. Aziz is looking for is a signal from the community and from the province of support in some fashion. If a staff member wanted to talk to Dr. Aziz about the issue, then potentially, some involvement with the Minister for Immigration through one of the other cabinet colleagues — to see what we can do to fast-track the process of bringing his parents over here for visits — would help us.

The problem that we have there — just for the minister's clarification, and then we'll move on — is that the wife cannot fully engage in the credentialing until she has familial support for the two children she has. That's why the two of them are connected. I will follow up with the minister's office and make sure you get more information about the nature of that.

If I could move on, then, to septic regulations. We did canvass this with one question in question period. The minister's response was that he thought, in general, the new sewerage system regulations are going well. I guess that an opening question is: after having an opportunity to reflect on that, get some advice from staff, is it the minister's continued position that in general, these regulations are going well?

Hon. G. Abbott: The short answer would be yes, I do think generally it has worked better than the sewage disposal regulations that preceded the current model. I'd say that for a number of reasons: technical flexibility, industry accountability and things like formal structure for education training and certification of service providers, more clarification around operation and maintenance requirements and requirements for ongoing system records.

I think that generally, it has worked well. I know of one situation in my own constituency where it has not worked well, and it didn't work well because the installer, for whatever reason, didn't exercise the technical care and competence which one would expect from the installer.

There is work ongoing between the B.C. OnSite Sewage Association, the ministry and Interior Health Authority to try to remedy that, but I think that that situation has been the exception rather than the rule.

Whether it's the old system of managing these things or the new system of managing these things, neither approach is foolproof. There were problems with the old system. There will occasionally be problems with the new system. I think that on balance, it has probably been reasonably well worth it.

B. Simpson: Well, on balance, a group that has come together reflects certainly what we're hearing on our side about these new regulations. The group consists of the B.C. Shellfish Growers Association, Canadian Institute of Public Health Inspectors B.C. branch and Public Health Association of British Columbia. It involves environmental health officers with the various health authorities.

We also have numerous complaints from many communities and individuals about the system not working because it is a self-policing system. It is a self-regulation system, in which the government has effectively removed its capacity for oversight, even when people know that systems are going in that are not appropriate. It has added significant cost to the system for those who do want to go through this process — costs in the neighbourhood of $30,000 for what used to be a $5,000 or $6,000 system going in.

We've got problems in all kinds of communities that we still don't have registered, trained installers, and problems where we have installers who have gone through the entire process…. In Tatlayoko Lake region they've gone through the whole process, and yet they see illegal systems being put in all around them. When they call the health authority to have them come and do something about it, they get completely ignored, because the health authority, when it does respond, says that they have no inspection authority independent of the new regulatory body, which is a self-policing body.

The minister was given a briefing to this effect on February 18, 2008. It's my understanding that this group has still not had a response from the ministry. Again, because of time constraints, I'll just read very quickly what this indicated to the minister about how

problematic these regulations are. They speak of loss of public health protection. The regulations seriously reduce the level of protection for the public and the environment because we only have minimum enforceable requirements. Lack of oversight because of the new self-regulatory model. The ministry no longer has the oversight function, and it says specifically that public health officials no longer make decisions on public health risk.

Deregulation has resulted in greater confusion. We've replaced a regulation with a standard practice manual that is nearly 300 pages long. The overprescriptive manual has all kinds of unintended effects. There's no public accountability, greater cost to the public and many illegal installations.

The coalition goes on to state that unless corrected soon, these problems will inevitably lead to contamination of the environment and harm to the public health. They ask the minister, through his staff, to do a complete rewrite and review of the sewerage system regulations.

So the minister's contention that there are only a few isolated incidents doesn't hold with the reality that's out there. I'm wondering if the minister or his staff will actually be responding to this coalition anytime soon, and if, in fact, we are in the process of considering a re-examination and rewrite of these regulations that are not working to the benefit of anybody.

Hon. G. Abbott: There were a number of assertions that were made in the member's comments, in respect of the current sewerage regulations, and it is fair to say that we disagree with him on a number of points.

First of all, I don't know what in construction hasn't gone up markedly over the last few years. If the member can point to some area of construction costs that have stayed the same or declined, I'd love to hear it. I don't know of any of those. Pretty much every area has gone up in cost, and not surprisingly, sewage disposal systems are not exempt from that.

Further, I think that we would assert that costs have gone up, but they would have gone up in any event, in that some of the lands that now can be utilized by certification by a professional engineer would not have been possible to put a house on or to develop in the past. So that's a change. Yes, there is an expense to it, but, yes, one can get better utilization of land through the professional responsibility model.

The member's suggestion that there are illegal systems here, there and elsewhere and that the health authority contends they don't have inspection authority…. The health authorities will investigate. If the member provides us with locations of what are supposedly illegal installations, we will ensure that the health authorities follow up. They do have the authority to do so.

In terms of self-regulating. I guess to an extent they are, but this is a system that is based on the principle of professional responsibility, and this system of professional responsibility is something we see in a range of areas.

It is the contemporary model for managing issues like this. When people screw up, they risk losing that professional credential. They also risk legal liability in their responsibility for the system. I think there's more to be said for the current sewerage regulations than is suggested by the member's comments.

That having been said, can it be improved? I'm sure it can be. That is why we have a Sewerage System Leadership Council, comprised of representatives from the Ministry of Health, regional health authorities, the Canadian Institute of Public Health Inspectors, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists, the Applied Science Technologists and Technicians of B.C. and the B.C. OnSite Sewage Association.

This leadership council meets monthly to address issues around the implementation of the regulation, and they are dedicating themselves to continuously improving in this area of sewerage regulation.

I guess a final point in terms of the coalition the member mentioned. I have not had a briefing from them. I have agreed to meet with them, and I gather I am meeting with them sometime in the next couple of weeks to hear their submission in this regard. I will look forward to that, and hopefully, we can learn from them.

B. Simpson: Just very quickly, the minister's contention back is ludicrous — that we went from $5,000 to $25,000 or $30,000 and that all it is, is a cost-of-living increase. It's because under the regulations, the government created monopolies and did not have a sufficient number of people out in rural B.C., where this mostly applies, to be able to put this in place and to have a system of competition.

The professional component to this is planning, installation, maintenance and inspection. One person does all of it, and that's part of the problem. We can belabour this at length. My question specifically to the minister…. He's discounting this small group. They're also members of the leadership group that he spoke to. They're wanting to know when they will get a response to their very serious claims about this system. Will they get a response from the minister's office to their serious allegations? Will that response be made public?

Hon. G. Abbott: I don't recall in my comments discounting or disparaging the coalition at all. I merely mentioned that I had not yet met with them. I understand that I have agreed to meet with them, but I have not had a briefing from them to this point.

I welcome the opportunity to get together with them. I'm sure that they will make no end of valid and constructive suggestions for our consideration. We will ensure that the Sewerage System Leadership Council is well aware of the suggestions that they make to improve the system, and hopefully we'll learn from it.

K. Conroy: Just to put on the record and not for the minister to respond to is the fact that this isn't just an

I had a constituent who started last August trying to get a permit. They wanted to be in their new house by December. They finally got a permit in May. Now they can't find a contractor to install the thing. The husband has actually done it himself, and he can't do it because it would take him three years to take the training to do it, but he used to install septic systems. They are now trying to find someone to put it in a new home that they had hoped to be into before Christmas last year. Now they're hoping that they can be into it by Christmas this year.

So it is an issue, and it's an issue out there in our region. I have another person that paid $40,000 for their new septic system. They had paid $5,000 for an old one that they had done previously. Now they have to pay a maintenance fee on it, by the company — $300 a month for a company to come and do maintenance, which seems a little exorbitant, and they're trying to work around that.

If we can take these issues to the council, too, that's potentially a good thing for us, because we need to take the issues somewhere. The IHA is saying that it's not their responsibility. So it is an issue for us out in the Kootenays, too, and I just want to put that on the record for the minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'd be very interested in knowing or understanding why the sewerage system that they put in for $5,000 had to be replaced by a $45,000 one.

B. Ralston: I have two questions, but I'm going to ask the minister simply to respond in writing to the first one, if he could. It's someone who came to my office on Friday, and rather than write the letter I thought I'd simply put it on the record here.

Dr. Yang is a physician who practises at 10751 King George Highway. He has a son who, he tells me, graduated from Cornell University and practises medicine in New York City. He wanted to use the Family Physicians for B.C. program to bring him to Whalley. He's at an age where he's looking to plan for retirement and turn his practice over to someone younger. He's had difficulty in attracting someone to be interested in a practice in this location.

When he inquired of the program, he said that he was told that the number of physicians available for the region was already allocated. He's interested in pursuing that, so I'd ask if the minister could have his staff simply examine that and direct an answer to me in writing.

The second and final question from me is…. The Fraser Health Authority disclosed through the Minister of Finance that they had an investment of $13 million in what is called non-bank-asset-backed commercial paper. As the minister may be aware, that whole program and that kind of instrument froze up in the market for…. It froze up in August, and it's the subject of protracted negotiations through Purdy Crawford to devise a program that would create a new secondary market.

I was assured by the CEO of Fraser Health at a meeting that he had with a number of other MLAs that he expected to make a full recovery — that is, recover the $13 million. Based on everything I know, I think that can't be accurate.

Given what the CEO has said, can the minister advise whether he expects a full recovery and if so, why, when no other experts in the field expect that? What they expect is that a new secondary market will be created where these instruments will trade at a market value. Rather than short-term money, it will become long term, like a five- or ten-year bond, and they'll likely trade at a substantial discount.

At the moment the $13 million is completely frozen. Can the minister explain why that response was forthcoming from the CEO and whether he agrees with it?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for bringing me just a couple of very simple issues to deal with here. On the first, the physician in the United States whose father hopes to have him join him in practice, we definitely will…. I presume the member has provided us with whatever details we need to do that, but we'll be glad to get back to the member on that. Anytime we can encourage practitioners from the United States and elsewhere to come and practise in British Columbia, we want to do that.

The second issue is probably even a little more complex around non-asset-backed investments. We understand…. Again, we're going to have to get back to the member with a full accounting of this, but this is how we understand it. There may be some errors or omissions in our accounting of it, but the member will appreciate that this is a complex issue, and we will want to respond by mail as well as with this oral accounting of it now.

We understand that on the $13 million investment Fraser Health has, for prudent bookkeeping purposes, taken a 10 percent write-down on the investment. However, they still expect a full recovery on that investment by holding the investment to maturity. That is what they believe will be possible. The member may have a different view of that. We are trying to respond in our usual transparent fashion to the member's complex question, but we will have a more fulsome accounting of that as is possible in the days ahead.

J. Brar: About two years ago a couple of big promises were made to the people of Surrey, and the minister is very well aware of those. One of the promises was to build a new out-patient hospital. As per the announcement, construction was to start in '07, which was subsequently delayed to '08.

At that time it was my understanding that the delay was almost a year, but the minister's point of view was that it was only a few months. We are ending the month of May, which is almost five months of this year. So my question to the minister is: when will the construction of the new out-patient hospital start?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, government has made commitments in respect of the redevelopment of Surrey Memorial Hospital. I know the member is very, very gratified that our government has taken the steps that it has to make a huge investment in an out-patient hospital for Surrey Memorial Hospital and for the redevelopment of the emergency department and for the other very, very substantial investments that have been made.

I think this is one of those times when I know there is a bipartisan kind of rejoicing around the decisions and the investments that have been made by our government. I know some people say that we've waited far too long and that this is something that should have happened back in the 1990s, but I don't want to cheapen my response by saying things like that. I know how supportive the member is of this project, so I just want to enjoy the bipartisan glow that we currently have in this chamber.

The Fraser Health Authority is currently doing a final assessment of proposals with two proponents around the request for proposal. Fraser Health is doing the finalization of the P3 contract with the successful proponent. We expect that they will be bringing that forward to government in June, and we expect construction to get underway in the summer of 2008.

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

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.


	YEAS — 38

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Chong	Christensen	Richmond
Bell	Krueger	van Dongen
Les	Roddick	Hayer
Lee	Jarvis	Nuraney
Cantelon	Thorpe	Hagen
de Jong	Taylor	Bond
Abbott	Penner	Neufeld
Coleman	Hogg	Sultan
Bennett	Lekstrom	Mayencourt
Polak	Hawes	Yap
Bloy	MacKay	Black
McIntyre		Rustad

	NAYS — 27

Hammell	S. Simpson	Farnworth
Ralston	B. Simpson	Austin
Brar	Thorne	Simons
Puchmayr	Fraser	Wyse
Sather	Horgan	Gentner
Dix	Trevena	Bains
Macdonald	Karagianis	Evans
Robertson	Chudnovsky	Coons
Routley	Lali	Conroy