Hansard — Wednesday, May 21, 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


Introductions by Members		12653

Statements		12653
	Opposition caucus softball team
	R. Hawes

Introductions by Members		12653

Statements		12654
	Opposition caucus softball team
	K. Conroy

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		12654
	Supervised Injection Facility Designation Act, 2008 (Bill M214)
	J. Kwan

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		12655
	Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month
	M. Polak
	Quadra Island floatplane accident
	C. Trevena
	Nurses in B.C.
	J. Nuraney
	Doukhobor community in B.C.
	K. Conroy
	Joe and Rosalie Segal
	H. Bloy
	Blackwater Paddlers
	B. Simpson

Oral Questions		12657
	B.C. Lottery Corporation management of casino transactions
	C. James
	Hon. J. van Dongen
	L. Krog
	M. Farnworth
	Customer rewards program for ferry fares
	G. Coons
	Hon. K. Falcon
	N. Simons
	C. Trevena
	Beds in Fraser Health Authority long-term care facilities
	G. Gentner
	Hon. G. Abbott

Motions without Notice		12661
	Appointment of Special Committee to Appoint a Police Complaint Commissioner
	Hon. M. de Jong

Petitions		12662
	Hon. R. Thorpe

Reports from Committees		12662
	Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth
	R. Cantelon

Committee of the Whole House		12662
	Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Emissions Standards) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 31)
	S. Simpson
	Hon. B. Penner
	B. Simpson

Report and Third Reading of Bills		12675
	Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Emissions Standards) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 31)

Committee of the Whole House		12675
	Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Vehicle Emissions Standards) Act (Bill 39)
	S. Simpson
	Hon. B. Penner

Reporting of Bills		12682
	Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Vehicle Emissions Standards) Act (Bill 39)

Third Reading of Bills		12682
	Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Vehicle Emissions Standards) Act (Bill 39)

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		12682
	Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)
	J. Brar
	Hon. G. Abbott
	D. Routley
	A. Dix
	D. Chudnovsky
	D. Thorne

C. James: Visiting in the gallery today from my constituency is a group of residents of Somerset House, a wonderful group who I've had many good debates and good political discussions with.

Among that group is a former MLA from this Legislature, former cabinet minister Eileen Dailly. Eileen is a former teacher and school trustee. She was elected in 1966 in Burnaby North, was re-elected five times and was also only the second woman ever to hold a cabinet post.

As Minister of Education, Eileen Dailly implemented a number of visionary initiatives. She was the one who introduced legislation to make kindergarten mandatory. She expanded the community college system, and she also helped create the first native school district in the Nass Valley. But I think Eileen is most well known for actually banning corporal punishment in public schools when she banned the strap in British Columbia. So we all have a lot to thank Eileen for.

Would the House please make Eileen and all the residents of Somerset House very welcome.

R. Hawes: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to tell you about an incident that happened last night as I was making my way home from the precinct. Just a block or so from here I came across a baseball diamond where it appeared there was a socialist horde trying to take command of the ball diamond. When I got closer, indeed it was a socialist horde. But they were being held back by the mighty press gallery ball team.

As I watched, I saw the opposition House Leader running in the field. I wondered what game he was playing, as he seemed to be running away from the balls that were coming anywhere near him. However, after watching for awhile, it became very clear that the socialist horde actually…. None of us have anything to fear. They were beaten back, badly beaten, by the press gallery. So we have nothing to fear.

Hon. G. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I know people are expecting me to rise and respond on behalf of those who have an opinion on corporal punishment in school. I certainly did and was tremendously relieved at the change that former Minister Dailly brought into place. However, I'm not up on that.

Hon. G. Abbott: It is never too late for you, Mr. Speaker — never too late.

In the gallery today are representatives from the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada. They include Mr. Todd Abercrombie, who is the executive director for the capital region chapter, and also Lynn Hunter, who is the chair of the national government relations committee and vice-chair, B.C. division board of directors. Her partner Don Armstrong is here with us today.

On behalf, I'm sure, of all members of the House, we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the Multiple Sclerosis Society as they help victims of this dread disease through difficult times in their lives and look for new opportunities through research to open up a new chapter in that challenging disease. I'd like the House to please make them welcome.

J. Kwan: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce 99 guests who are visiting in the gallery today. Normally, I rise in this House — as you know, Mr. Speaker — to introduce my mom or my daughter or my staff. But for the first time, really, I think, since I've been elected, I'm actually introducing constituents from the community.

There are ten other individuals, as well, in the Rattenbury Room, because the gallery is simply too small to fit the community groups that are here today. They are from the Downtown Eastside community, but not exclusively from the Downtown Eastside community. They're just like you and me, Mr. Speaker — people who are deserving of dignity and respect.

They are here to support the introduction of a bill that will be taking place later on today in support of the supervised injection site. More to the point, the three groups that I have put them into for the purpose of this introduction…. The Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users, people who actually have done a lot of advocacy on the ground to push harm reduction to be an accepted principle in our community, are here today.

The Life Skills Centre representatives are also here today, and they're the people who work day in and day out providing services in our community in a non-judgmental manner, in a manner which supports the people who are in greatest need.

Last but not least, there's a coalition of people called Insite for Community Safety. It truly is a wide coalition of people who are gathered here today to show their support for the supervised injection site in Vancouver in the Downtown Eastside and the first in North America.

With that, I'd like to ask all members of the House to please make these very special guests very welcome.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today Dean Purdy, who is the chair of the correctional and sheriff services component of the B.C. Government Employees Union. I met with him and a number of his colleagues this morning to talk about

issues of concern in our ministry, and I want to say that we had an informative meeting. I ask the House to please make them all very welcome.

L. Krog: Unfortunately, I don't have the names of the six individuals. But joining us in the gallery today are six students from the Malaspina campus of Vancouver Island University here showing support for the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and many of her constituents who fill the gallery. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. L. Reid: I've just had the absolute pleasure of dining with Sheila Orr, someone I have great admiration for. Certainly, I know she has fond memories of this place. I would ask the House to please make her welcome.

N. Simons: I'd like to introduce those members of the BCGEU correctional and sheriff services who are here to meet with the minister — I hope it was a productive meeting: Dean Purdy, component chair; Steve Lisik; Ron McCabe; Derrick Goodwin; Larry Cadieux; Mike Scott; and Wiho Papenbrock. Will the House please make them welcome.

K. Conroy: Well, I beg to differ with the member for Maple Ridge–Mission. Last night a quiet neighbourhood in James Bay was transformed into an event comparable to the World Series. Okay, I exaggerate. More like the local slo-pitch beer league. However, last night the NDP staff and caucus played our second annual game against the media.

Now, I must admit that both sides chose to bring in some ringers this year. The member for Nelson-Creston recruited the Minister of State for ActNow for our side. Quite frankly, we were all impressed with his skill and dexterity for a man of his age. We were all pleasantly surprised by the skills of the member for Surrey–Green Timbers, who I'm sure all members of the House will now refer to as Slugger Sue.

But the media, in comparison…. Well, they brought in some extremely skilled young gentlemen, none of whom any of us recognized from any media outlets, although Mr. Leyne assured me that this was a family event. His very athletic sons and their very athletic friends were surely welcome.

However, I do digress, and I want to thank our last-minute fill-in umpire, Clerk Craig James, for his impeccable skill — for filling in for yourself, Mr. Speaker, when you were so unavoidably detained. It would have been helpful if you had warned us that Mr. James knows very little about the game. Some of his calls were somewhat questionable, especially against our side. But again I digress. I want to genuinely thank him for taking the time to ensure that this was a very fair and honest game.

However, in light of the final outcome — and yes, I am getting to it — I just want to remind members that last year we, the members from this side of the House, were indeed victorious. But this year, alas, I am sad to say we conceded the game by one run — just one run — to the mighty media.

However, we have all agreed that next year will be the ultimate grudge match. I've assured the media that the game will be sometime next year. The NDP caucus, staff, friends, family and whoever else we can find to play will be only too happy to once again meet the media and triumph in the third game of this ongoing matching of exemplary skills on the ball diamond.

Mr. Speaker: Speaking of the media, I just would like to inform the House that our very own Keith Baldrey just this morning came within inches of making a hole in one. But he birdied the last two holes, and he said that the press gallery would never believe it unless it was announced here in the House.

J. Kwan presented a bill intituled Supervised Injection Facility Designation Act, 2008.

J. Kwan: I move the bill intituled Supervised Injection Facility Designation Act, 2008, be read for a first time now.

J. Kwan: Injection drug use is a significant public health issue, and epidemic rates of HIV and AIDS, hepatitis C and other infectious diseases amongst injection drug users were identified as a major concern by many, including the Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS. The health authority at the time identified the establishment of a supervised injection facility as a legitimate part of a response to this public health emergency.

This bill provides for the designation of Insite, the supervised injection facility operated by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, as a health facility. Insite is an integral part of Vancouver Coastal Health Authority's continuum of care for people with addiction, mental illness and HIV and AIDS.

More than 30 published scientific research papers have shown the success of the facility, which includes increased access to acute health care amongst marginalized populations, increased use of detox services, increased engagement in addiction treatment, reduced risk of overdose fatalities, reduced needle sharing, no increase in drug use or petty crime and no decrease in public order or safety.

Insite provides an essential health service for hundreds of the city's most vulnerable residents and operates with the support of the municipal and provincial governments and health care workers, including the BCNU. This enactment affirms that the medical care and treatment provided at Insite, as well as all matters necessarily incidental to the effective medical care and treatment of individuals at Insite, is supported by the provincial health legislation and is in accordance with the province's exclusive jurisdiction under subsections 92(7), (13) and (16) of the Constitution Act.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M214, Supervised Injection Facility Designation 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.

M. Polak: May is Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month. We wear carnations in the House today to draw attention to a complex disease that can strike British Columbians in the prime of life. We also wear these symbols of hope to show support for an organization dedicated to finding a cure for that disease and enhancing the quality of life of all those affected by it.

Multiple sclerosis is a chronic, often disabling disease of the brain and spinal cord. Most people with MS are diagnosed between the ages of 15 and 40, and the unpredictable effects of MS last for the rest of their lives. MS can cause loss of balance, impaired speech, extreme fatigue, double vision and paralysis.

You may also recognize the carnation as the symbol of Mother's Day. That the carnation also symbolizes the hope for a cure for MS is not coincidental. Women are more than three times as likely to develop MS as men. Canadians have one of the highest rates of multiple sclerosis in the world. At the same time Canada is a world leader in MS research, with tens of thousands of Canadians committed to ending MS in as short a time as possible.

Today and throughout the month of May, we salute the dedicated efforts of the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada, its volunteers and supporters in leading the way to finding a cure for MS and in offering support for people with MS and their families. I urge all British Columbians to take up that cause by learning more about multiple sclerosis and doing what they can to support the MS Society.

C. Trevena: On the east side of Quadra Island, there's a very poignant memorial — a bench with five dolphins carved in it, with loggers' boots strung above. A shelter surrounds it, with homemade shell wind chimes. There's a plaque in front — a plaque to remember five workers killed in a floatplane crash on February 28, 2005: Fabian Bedard, brothers Trevor and Doug Decock, David Stevens and pilot Arnie Feast.

The five headed off to work but did not return. Their plane crashed in the channel on the east side of the island. Only one body has ever been found, and there's still no explanation. It's been a fight for the families from the start to find out information and to get action.

It was with their hard work that the plane was located and later the fuselage removed. It continued to be the work of the families to push for answers from officials locally, provincially and federally. Frustrated with what they see as a lack of response, they're paying for private investigation.

They'd like to see a public inquiry held, but despite their concerted efforts, all they see on the horizon is the coroner's report. The families are still looking for answers as to what happened and what condition the plane was in. It's not just for them to move on with their lives, but so that such an incident would not be repeated.

With five men dead, they were hoping that they would not be the only ones who wanted to make sure something like this never happens again. But the more they push, the more questions they have and the more frustrated they become with what they see as indifference from those institutions that they feel they should be able to trust for setting standards and for making sure that both transportation and work are as safe as possible. They get frustrated.

The memorial to the five men is a peaceful spot. It will be more peaceful for all the families when their questions are answered.

J. Nuraney: Recently we celebrated 150 years of nursing in our province. A career in nursing is a noble calling. I would like to pay tribute to all the nurses who have been serving in our health care system throughout the province. Their dedication to their work and expression of compassion through their care for the people they help get better are truly commendable. I had the opportunity to watch them work in the Burnaby Hospital not too long ago, and I can vouch for their dedication.

One of the challenges in our health care system has been the shortage of nurses. I'm delighted to report to the House today that this government has nearly doubled the number of nurse education spaces across British Columbia. This has produced a record number of graduates who have received close to 13,000 nursing degrees, diplomas and certificates since 2001. We have added and funded 3,786 new spaces — an increase of 93 percent.

More spaces will be added as announced in our budget. This will greatly ease the pressure as we continue to seek innovative and creative methods of dealing with our health care system. It is important to note that in order to sustain our health care system, there

has to be a true partnership by all providers, which include doctors, surgeons, nurses and support workers.

It is through such concerted and well-intentioned efforts that we will succeed in protecting this very important asset and privilege that we all enjoy. Once again I want to show my appreciation to those who have chosen nursing as their career.

K. Conroy: This weekend I had the pleasure of attending the Union of Spiritual Communities of Christ 61st annual Union of Youth Festival. The USCC, more commonly known as the Doukhobors, have a number of events this year. The youth festival is one of them. This year is particularly special to the Doukhobors, as they are celebrating 100 years of living in British Columbia.

In the years 1908 to 1913, over 5,000 Doukhobor settlers came from the Prairies to B.C. It has been deemed the largest internal migration in Canadian history.

Today B.C. is home to well over half of the approximately 50,000 Doukhobor descendants living in Canada. They built their original communities in the West Kootenay and Boundary regions, establishing themselves with their hard work and peace-loving existence. Although their lives have not been without turmoil, this group of people has always risen above the issues of the day and succeeded where many others would have given up.

At the festival on Saturday, I had the honour to read a proclamation from the government acknowledging the significance of this historical event. I want to take a moment to thank the Attorney General and the Lieutenant-Governor, their staff as well as my own, for their efforts in ensuring the proclamation could be signed, sealed and delivered in time for me to read at the festival.

The proclamation also recognized the contribution of the Doukhobor community to the cultural, social and economic development of B.C. and how they still play an active role in the promotion and pursuit of peace, freedom and justice in our province, nation and the world.

The theme of this year's festival, "Reflection and progression," gave the participants a chance to reflect back a hundred years to see how they have progressed and also to ensure a future for their grandchildren and great-grandchildren so that they too, a hundred years from now, can reflect on their progression.

If you are passing through our region this summer, please take the time to visit the Doukhobor Discovery Centre in Castlegar, where this year's exhibit is dedicated to the centenary.

H. Bloy: I rise today to honour a family that has given so much to British Columbia and Canada. I want to say thank you to the Segal family for all that they have done.

I was introduced to the Segal family by Peter Legg, an outstanding British Columbia in his own right. Peter Legg considers Joe Segal his mentor.

Joe and Rosalie Segal are outstanding British Columbians who have contributed so much to our communities not only financially but with time and effort. You've seen this over and over again from the many organizations that they have assisted over the years.

I could not talk about Joe Segal and not tell one of his stories. Joe would say that a man could give a million dollars to his charity if he had that amount of money, but the real worth of the man to that charity would be to give of his time and effort in assisting the charity in the long term.

Joe started his business empire with $50 after leaving the Canadian Armed Forces in 1948. Joe and Rosalie achieved much success, from a small business retail outlet to owning The Bay department stores and Zellers and many other businesses.

Joe has been named to the hall of fame for business for Canada and for British Columbia. Joe has been awarded the Order of British Columbia and the Order of Canada. Joe and Rosalie Segal have each been honoured with an honorary doctorate from Simon Fraser University for their contributions to society. Just recently Joe and Rosalie were honoured by the Lions as outstanding citizens for 2008 and presented with the Medal of Merit award. But not only do Joe and Rosalie contribute, their son Lorne, for many years now, has chaired the Courage to Come Back Awards.

We are lucky in British Columbia to have a family like Joe and Rosalie Segal contributing to the betterment of our communities.

B. Simpson: Next Thursday, May 29, the Blackwater Paddlers will be conducting a commemorative paddle down the Fraser River to recognize the 200th anniversary of Simon Fraser's landing at the confluence of the Quesnel and Fraser rivers, a place we now call Ceal Tingley Park.

The paddlers are hoping to time the event so that they land close to the exact hour that Simon Fraser landed, around 6 p.m. or dinnertime. Simon Fraser, in his journal, seemed intent on dinner because he records that they went out looking for wild onions to flavour their sauce.

The group will be in historical costume and will be paddling two 26-foot canoes that were patterned on the voyageur north canoes. The Blackwater Dancer, which was built by Quesnel residents Brian Black and Ron Watteyne and other club members, was built and put in the water in 1993 to celebrate the 200th anniversary of Alexander Mackenzie's landing in Quesnel, an event that holds many fond memories for our community. The second canoe is a replica canoe, as well, that was purchased by Jeff Dinsdale and is aptly called the Wannabe.

These canoes could take up to ten people, depending on supplies. The paddlers hope to have six people

in each canoe, and they will go north of Quesnel down to the confluence, depending on the state of the Fraser. The Fraser is in full flood, and it may be too dangerous to put the boats in. I guess we're not as hardy as the explorers of the day were. For safety's sake, they may not be able to do it.

Regardless, there will be a celebration at our Shiraoi House, in which there will be a short play depicting Fraser's landing. I will have the privilege of playing the part of John Stuart, because apparently I can put on a good Scottish accent when I need to, and John Stuart was the only Scotsman in the group. Later John Stuart became in charge of the New Caledonia region for the North West Company.

I ask the House to show their appreciation of the Blackwater Paddlers for bringing this part of our history alive.

C. James: Today we learned about another scandal in the Solicitor General's ministry. Freedom-of-information documents obtained by the media show the B.C. Lottery Corporation has been under-reporting suspicious transactions.

This is about potential money laundering, but the B.C. Liberals never brought the information forward. They've never made it public. Their silence and their inaction have put the integrity of the entire system at risk.

My question is to the Solicitor General. How is it that the media knew more about this scandal than he did, or is this just another example of cover-up by the Liberal government?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to start by indicating that the goal of our government is to ensure that casino gaming is conducted in British Columbia responsibly and with integrity. To that end, I am concerned about the media reports about alleged under-reporting by British Columbia, by the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

I am in the process of conducting my due diligence. I've spoken to the chair of the board of B.C. Lottery Corporation, to the CEO, and I've asked for an urgent meeting. I feel it's my duty to follow due process. I've expressed to them my concerns. I will have certain questions for them, and after that, I will take whatever action I believe is appropriate.

C. James: We need more than concern from this minister and this government. We need this to be taken seriously. The entire Lottery Corporation is at risk.

Let's take a look at the information. In 2003 workers identified 49 suspicious transactions, but only nine of them were reported to the federal authorities. In 2006, as an example to compare, Ontario reported $15 million in suspicious activity. B.C. only reported $60,000.

There's a real problem at B.C. Lottery, and failure to actually report these questionable transactions is a criminal offence. I ask the minister again: how is it that the media, in their own investigation over four years, were able to expose this when successive ministers knew nothing about it?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I have also spoken to the federal minister responsible for FinTrack, which is the federal agency that receives reports with respect to possible money laundering or the passing of suspicious levels of cash. I have also instructed our gaming policy enforcement branch to review the experience in Ontario to ensure that we learn from that experience.

There are specific reporting requirements established by FinTrack, a federal agency, that I expect our casino operators and the B.C. Lottery Corporation to meet. As I said, in doing my due diligence, I want to assure myself that they are meeting those requirements. There are certain specific requirements with respect to suspicious currency transactions, which is a technical term, that the B.C. Lottery Corporation is expected to meet.

I will look at both sides of this issue to satisfy myself as to what action needs to be taken.

C. James: It's typical of this minister and of this government that they decide to look into issues after they're caught out, after they're found out by the media. You would think, Mr. Speaker, that a minister would be paying attention to the documents. They certainly can't claim ignorance. In fact, in 2005 B.C.'s own Auditor General called for tighter rules and better reporting. But still we saw nothing done.

This is just one in a long list of scandals out of this ministry. We'll all remember the forgotten child death reviews, the reduced coroner inquests, the lottery retailer scandal, the ICBC chop shop example. The list goes on and on. There have been successive failures by this minister, by past ministers and by this government when it comes to the ministry.

My question is to the minister. How many more scandals do British Columbians have to endure before the B.C. Liberals get a grip on this ministry?

Hon. J. van Dongen: In 2002 this government passed a new Gaming Control Act and, as a result of that, put in place clear policies, clear procedures. There was a clear set of procedures for casino operators and B.C. Lottery Corporation to follow. As I said, I will be reviewing all of that from a performance perspective to satisfy myself that the proper action has been taken.

This is a matter of not only meeting our expectations for integrity in all of our gaming operations. That

is what the public has a right to expect. That is the expectation of our government. But it is also the law, under federal law, that these kinds of suspicious currency transactions be reported to FinTrack, and I will ensure that that is being done.

L. Krog: Well, the minister can talk all he wants about process. But if nobody actually does anything, a process is pretty much useless, which appears to be the case here. Three years ago, in 2005, the Auditor General told this government that major consequences such as increased organized crime happen when gaming is not strictly enforced. But this government did little about those concerns, and once again we find out that successive Solicitors General have dropped the ball, ignored problems and buried the concerns.

So to the Solicitor General — simple question: why do we have to learn about the problems from the media and only after years of denials and withholding of FOI requests?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The issue of organized crime, including money laundering, which certainly can take place in and around casino operations, is one that is of great concern to our government. That is why we are putting additional dollars and police resources into specialized integrated teams to seek out, investigate and establish actions against organized crime and money-laundering activities. Our government is concerned about these things. That is why we're putting $53 million of additional money into those police operations.

L. Krog: Well, I hate to use a racing analogy, but I think they're shutting the barn door after the horse got out on this one.

Under this government, the whole gaming system has been put under a cloud. First it was the lottery retailer scandal; now potential money laundering. Every single time the minister of the day tells us that everything is just fine, a few months later we find out it's a disaster.

It's clear. It's the club med attitude of this government, same as with forestry. It's hands off, hands off. The government broke their promise to expand gambling.

L. Krog: Now they're addicted to the money, and they're avoiding the serious problems in the B.C. gaming system. Clearly, there's no oversight here — just denial. So when are the B.C. Liberals going to crack down and fix their broken gaming system?

Hon. J. van Dongen: No one is saying that there isn't an issue or a concern here. What I'm saying is that we as a government expect integrity and responsibility in our gaming operations. It is my intent to ensure that that goal is met.

I believe that I have a responsibility to follow due process. That's why I've asked for a meeting with the board of directors of B.C. Lottery Corporation. It is important that I as minister do not rush to judgment, that I get all of the facts. As I said, my commitment to the members of this House and to the public is that I will take whatever action I believe is necessary to ensure that our goal of integrity and responsibility is met in our casino operations.

M. Farnworth: What we saw in Ontario was the lottery retail scandal. When the questions were raised here in British Columbia, we were told that no, everything was fine here and that nothing would happen. What we're hearing now out of Ontario is $15 million of suspicious transactions and $60,000 here in British Columbia, and a lot of questions are being asked.

The issue was raised in 2005 in the Auditor General's report. My question to the minister is: why has nothing been done since 2005 when that Auditor General's report came out?

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I've said, I intend to act on this information immediately, as I am doing. I have due process to follow. I have due-diligence responsibilities to the public, and I intend to carry those out.

M. Farnworth: The minister says he wants to do due diligence. Well, the government should have been doing due diligence since 2005 when the Auditor General's report came out.

My question to the minister is this. Will he table in this House the results of that due diligence? Will he table in this House the discussions and any reports that come out of his meetings with the B.C. Lottery Corporation?

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I said, after I conduct my due diligence, I will decide what action is appropriate. I will also make a determination of how to best report that to this House and to the public.

G. Coons: Today we learned that B.C. Ferries has struck another deal that insults ferry-dependent communities. The minister has allowed certain grocery store customers to benefit from reduced ferry fares at the expense of others. B.C. Ferries is selling discounted tickets to Save-On-Foods so their customers can redeem them for free.

Reduced fares shouldn't be for those who buy the most groceries, nor should they be for those who shop

at one particular store over another. It creates unfairness, and it doesn't address the overall problem — the largest and fastest increase in ferry fares in this province's history.

Will the minister tell the people of ferry-dependent communities that there will be no corporate favouritism over public interest? Or will the message be that with him at the helm, they have no hope and that their communities are going down fast?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, I can't imagine the horror that B.C. Ferries might enter into a marketing program that encourages people to take advantage of the ferry system and ride the ferry system. What a shock, and how upsetting that must be for the members opposite. [Laughter.]

As we listen to the peals of laughter from across the way, I only can think to myself that the model the NDP want to see, of course, is the old B.C. Ferries Crown corporation model. You might remember those days. Those were days of strikes that put the service out of business for the public of British Columbia. The average age of the vessel fleet was 42 years old. Those were the glory days when they ran up over a billion dollars of debt on the Crown corporation and bankrupted it. Those were the glory days when they built fast ferries that didn't work.

That's not where we're going. B.C. Ferries is doing a great job for the public of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Members. I want to remind members to listen to the question and listen to the answer.

G. Coons: Well, the minister should take off his eight-track and come to the present. The minister just doesn't get it. His policies are the cause of the devastation to coastal communities, and he refuses to accept his failure in that regard.

The people of coastal communities contribute immensely to the revenue of this province, and they watch as the ferry board of directors get outrageous pay increases, spend millions on advertising, gouge the public with reservation fees and now give corporate benefits to some British Columbians over others.

When will this minister finally recognize the devastating impact that his policies have, and when will he start acting in the public interest?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, I had to check and find out what an eight-track is. Now that I've been informed what an eight-track is, I understand the nature of the member's question. I do think that….

You know, the member takes an extraordinarily pessimistic view of a company that's actually trying to find a way to work with folks who do a lot of shopping throughout the province of British Columbia and provide them opportunities to utilize those points for ferry trips. For the life of me, I cannot understand the NDP's opposition to a company that is trying to work with businesses to market the product that they provide to British Columbians and give British Columbians better opportunities to utilize those services.

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, I think the question that we really have to answer is why the NDP is offended by a corporation that has now demonstrated that they're delivering an improved service with massive investment in the terminals, massive new fleet renewal and new vessels that are delivered on schedule and under budget — unlike the other disaster that the B.C. Ferry Corporation became under the NDP government.

N. Simons: The Powell River region on the upper Sunshine Coast is entirely ferry-dependent. They have an Overwaitea grocery store, which contributes immensely to the community and where customers can accumulate points to redeem for free ferry tickets. But it also has a Safeway, a Chopping Block and Mitchell Brothers in operation as a grocery store since 1946. With this ill-advised plan, B.C. Ferries has pitted one local business over another. They've done so without consultation with the ferry advisory committee, local government or the chamber of commerce.

I think that people in ferry-dependent communities have every right to be outraged with this minister's response. The real problem is the biggest ferry fare increase in the history of this province. How will pitting one business against another resolve this issue?

Hon. K. Falcon: Oh, the offence, the horror that B.C. Ferries might actually be trying to do some things to reach out and make some arrangements with businesses to try to provide benefits for the people that do shopping. The horror. I mean, the outrage that that member…. I just can't imagine how he can deal with the stress that this must cause him.

The fact of the matter is…. This member talks about ferry increases. Well, you know, under the great NDP mismanagement of the ferry corporation, fares went up 70 percent in that decade. The difference is not a dime invested in terminals; not a dime invested in new vessels, except for the three fast ferries that don't work and are still sitting over there in the harbour in Vancouver; and nothing for the benefit of the travelling public.

Today we have a corporation that delivers a great service reliably, with labour peace, efficiently and with

N. Simons: I find that response extremely disingenuous and disrespectful to the coastal communities which I represent. This impacts on the cost of living, and it's a serious problem.

In the lower Sunshine Coast we have another problem. There's not one store where residents of the lower Sunshine Coast can collect these points.

So you have this government making decisions, or allowing decisions to be made, that have absolutely nothing to do with the public interest — once again, no consultation with the chamber of commerce, no consultation with the ferry advisory committees.

Does the minister believe that the ferry corporation can make up whatever policies they want without anyone looking out for the public interest?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm kind of curious to know who the NDP consulted with when they went ahead to build $500 million worth of fast ferries. I'd like to know: who did you talk to? What chambers of commerce? It would have been nice if one member of the board had actually had some business experience. That would have been really nice, instead of the labour representative they put on there who later, after the fiasco, said "What the heck do I know about building boats?"

That's the difference between the opposition and government. I'll tell you what….

Hon. K. Falcon: There appears to be a little sensitivity over there when we talk about the ferry corporation. I know that the members opposite want to look with rose-coloured glasses at what they believed happened in the '90s with the ferry corporation. Let's just be blunt about it.

It was a disaster. They bankrupted the corporation. The average age of the fleet was 42 years old. They had regular labour shutdowns that shut down the entire corporation.

So what do we have today? We've got labour peace. Employee morale is up. We've got improved customer satisfaction surveys, and we've got a great system operating for British Columbians, finally, in British Columbia.

C. Trevena: We just would like an answer from the minister. We'd like an answer for all the people who live on islands as to where they're supposed to shop. Are they all supposed to shop at Save-On-Foods as the only way that they're going to be able to afford to ride the ferries, to use their system of transportation? Is this what the minister wants?

Maybe the minister should have consulted, or ensured that B.C. Ferries consulted, with the chambers of commerce and other municipalities and other people who live in those communities.

We have a situation where B.C. Ferries can go and make business deals with one chain of supermarkets. It can decide that suddenly it's going to have a sale on one set of ferry tickets. To get from Nanaimo to the Lower Mainland costs the same at the moment as it does to get from Campbell River to Quadra Island. There's something a little screwy there.

So I'd like to ask the Minister of Transportation if he'll take his job responsibly and defend the public interest, making sure he's not doing business deals which benefit one chain of supermarkets over the rest of the community, and ensure that our ferry fares are equitable across all routes.

Hon. K. Falcon: So let me try and understand the great offence that the NDP are taking over the fact that you've got a company….

Hon. K. Falcon: So as we try and think about this…. Now, you can use Save-On-More points for international travel, but the NDP are offended that the corporation might actually want to use that for travel within British Columbia. Oh, the horror. Oh, the horror of B.C. Ferries thinking about establishing marketing arrangements that encourage ridership and encourage tourism to those very coastal communities that they are apparently defending.

Hon. K. Falcon: I understand that although these arrangements are absolutely commonplace around the world, it is a great shock to the NDP opposition. The socialists on the other side can't imagine how horrifying it might be that a company is actually trying to think about ways to improve ridership, to create benefits, to encourage people as they do their shopping. And I might say this also. I doubt that this will be….

Hon. K. Falcon: This could be important, Members. You might want to listen to it.

I rather doubt that this will be the last arrangement that B.C. Ferries enters into. But let me tell you this. It's a heck of a lot better than the disaster you operated during the 1990s.

G. Gentner: Let me shift from more points for ferries to credit card medicine. In Chilliwack one of the first acts this government did for seniors was shut down an 85-bed facility before opening a new one; 85 seniors were displaced. Five years later the FHA is admitting that it has a severe shortage of residential care beds in Chilliwack.

Fifty-one seniors at Valley Haven will be what the FHA calls double-bunked because of the minister's botched long-term care plan — two seniors in a 90-square-foot room.

Minister, you are in your eighth year, and this is what we have. We have bunk beds for seniors.

G. Gentner: When is this government going to treat seniors with the respect and dignity that they so aptly deserve?

Hon. G. Abbott: I know that this member has not been in the House very long. If he'd been in a little longer, he would recall that double-bunking was entirely the order of the day during the NDP years.

In fact, the excellent private rooms, private homes, today are the standard. Back in the day, you were lucky to get a shared room under the NDP. More likely it would be a multiple-bed room under the NDP.

Further, I will tell the member this. The Fraser Health Authority has done a great job in providing new residential care and assisted living. As of today, Fraser Health has built almost as many rooms since 2001 as the NDP government built across the entire province for ten years from 1991 to 2001.

G. Gentner: Well, the minister can play his little game of interpreting stats, but we did not kick seniors around the way this government does for its rich friends. I'm not making this up. The FHA's own language is saying it's double-bunking seniors — long-term care bunk beds. I know the minister believes in two-tier health, but this is getting a little ridiculous. Next thing, seniors will have to pull straws to determine which bunk bed they get — the top or the bottom.

My question to the minister is this. Why will seniors have to live in a cell-like condition for over 14 months at Valley Haven care home because of this government's incompetence and lack of compassion for seniors?

Hon. G. Abbott: There is no other way to characterize that member's remarks than ridiculous and insulting. I am very well aware of the facility in Chilliwack. I'm well aware of it. The arrangement that has been made has been a consensual one on the part of all the people who are part of that project. For the member to disparage the shared living arrangement when it was the standard during the NDP years is absolutely insulting and absurd.

Very recently I was a part of a celebration of 4,000 incremental residential care and assisted-living units. Later this year we'll celebrate 5,000 incremental residential care and assisted-living….

Hon. R. Thorpe: I have the privilege to table a petition on behalf of the 38 residents of the Green Bay Mobile Home Park.

R. Cantelon: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth for the fourth session of the 38th parliament.

R. Cantelon: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

R. Cantelon: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I wish to make some brief comments.

Since 2006 the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth has been working towards fostering greater awareness and understanding of British Columbia's child welfare system. It is the aim of the Children and Youth Committee to continue to advance in a non-partisan manner issues of vital importance to the care and well-being of B.C.'s children.

The committee members look forward to continuing our close work with the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, the Ministry of Children and Family Development and other ministries and agencies to ensure that the best interests of B.C.'s children are met.

In closing, I would like to thank the Representative for Children and Youth and her staff, as well as senior officials from the Ministry of Children and Family Development, Ministries of Income Assistance, Advanced Education and the Ministry of Education for their assistance and their important contributions to the oversight of child welfare.

In addition, I would like to thank all members of the committee for their important contributions to the committee's unanimous report. I would also like to express the committee's appreciation to Jonathan Fershau, the committees researcher, who is leaving the assembly after five years in the committees office. His contributions and support of our work were appreciated, and he will be missed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber committee stage debate of Bill 31, and in Section A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, it's continued debate on the Ministry of Health estimates.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 31; S. Hammell in the chair.

S. Simpson: We're here, I believe — just let me clarify — under the divisions and definitions. My question to the minister in regard to this is…. We have listed under definitions "coal-based generating facility." Could the minister define what that constitutes in terms of what those might include? There are a lot of coal-based generation facilities.

Hon. B. Penner: The intention there is that the term "coal-based generating facility" would refer to a facility or a power plant that's generating electricity through the use of coal or a combination of coal and some other fossil fuel.

S. Simpson: When this definition of coal-based generating facility, electricity generating facility…. What I'm interested in here is…. We know there are facilities that are exclusively for the generation of power, of electricity, which then would go into the grid or whatever. That's one type of facility. We also have facilities that burn coal for power purposes. I know there has been discussion of a few of those facilities around the province.

Would facilities like that be included in this definition of coal-based generating facilities — facilities where coal is the primary source of power to generate for a facility or for an industrial plant, not necessarily for sale into the grid as electricity?

Hon. B. Penner: Just a clarification of the question. Is the member referring to what's known as self-

generation, a facility that would generate electricity for its own internal use as opposed to selling it to the grid?

S. Simpson: For example, for the minister, there was some discussion about this facility a number of months ago. I believe it's in the Prince George area. Is it the Giscome facility? It slips my mind at the moment.

There the discussion is about burning coal for their own production purposes — largely as their primary power source for their own production purposes, not necessarily for the sale of electricity per se. So it is more about an industrial use and the use of coal as an energy source to power their own facilities.

Hon. B. Penner: The intention is that a facility that would be generating electricity with the use of coal would be captured by a regulation that is yet to be drafted, obviously, because the legislation hasn't been passed. Certainly if it's a significant facility generating electricity using coal as a fuel source, then I would expect that it would be captured by the regulation that would be designed under this section.

If it's the case that a facility that was using coal to generate electricity would be captured by whatever the regulation is after it's written, a facility that was using coal to power an industrial activity, which wasn't going into generation of electricity for sale in any way but was being used to provide the power for that specific facility…. Would it be captured under this definition? Or would that be something outside of what's considered here — if it was for a single purpose, for an industrial use?

Hon. B. Penner: As I noted during second reading debate on this bill — I've just been reminded of this — the commitment is that there would be zero greenhouse gas emissions from any coal thermal electricity generation in the province.

So even if it was a facility that's not on grid or putting out to the grid, discharging the electricity to the grid, my understanding is that the policy intent is that it would be captured.

S. Simpson: I'm just moving on to one other question related to definitions. We see that it talks about an electricity generating facility. Then it continues on to talk about "existing electricity generating facility" and "new electricity generating facility."

I understand the difference between existing and new, but what's the difference between those two and the "electricity generating facility" on the first page? Or is that just the two of them put together in combination? I'm wondering why there's this variety of definitions.

Hon. B. Penner: The updated 2007 energy plan was announced on February 27, 2007. In that document it states that any new generating facility will have to have zero net greenhouse gas emissions on a go-forward basis. Another way of looking at it is that anything that was pre-existing from that date would be captured, I think, by the definition here of existing electricity generating facility.

You could think of things like…. There's a natural gas power plant, I believe, in Fort Nelson or on Vancouver Island, sometimes known as ICP. It escapes me at the moment what that really means — Island cogeneration plant.

As well, of course, there's Burrard Thermal, which has been around since 1961. Those would be captured by the definition of an existing electricity generating facility. There are different requirements in the energy plan depending on whether a power plant is coming forward after the date of the new energy plan or whether it's already pre-existing.

The Chair: Member, section 2 is a long section. If we indicate where we are, it would just assist in the process.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that answer from the minister about new and existing. When I look at the first page of the bill in division 1, "Definitions," and go down to the fifth definition, it says "electricity generating facility" and identifies that. Then it goes on to identify the existing and new facilities that the minister has explained in his last response.

I just want to determine whether the electricity generating facility that's not identified as either new or existing is simply an identification of the two of them together when talking about electricity facilities.

Hon. B. Penner: My expectation is that that will be the mechanism for defining the scope of the size of the facility we're talking about. In other words, someone who may own a one-megawatt or half-megawatt diesel backup generator for a farm, for example, is likely not to be captured by this regulation. I think the first definition, electricity generating facility, is to set the scope of what will then be referred to in the definition of either "existing electricity generating facility" or "new electricity generating facility."

But it would be my expectation that someone who's got a backup diesel generator for their camper or for their farm would likely not be caught by that definition of electricity generating facility.

S. Simpson: One last question under the matter of definitions, and that's the operator. It goes on to talk about the operator: "…to be the operator of the facility." Is that presumed to be the operator or the operator-owner? Is it presumed to be the owner of the facility as well?

Hon. B. Penner: The policy intention with that definition is to make sure there's someone held respon-

sible for the objectives of the legislation. In some cases the operator may be separate from the owner.

You can envision, for example…. Just north of Victoria here, there's the Hartland Landfill. The landfill, I believe, is owned by the capital regional district. But there's a small power-producing facility that's operated, I believe, by Maxim Power. They're capturing the methane and combusting it to generate electricity and selling it back to B.C. Hydro.

My expectation would be that they would be the operator. It's possible, as we design the regulation, that we could also capture the owner, but sometimes there will be a difference between who the owner is and who the operator is.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the answer, and I expect that there certainly may be times when the owner is the appropriate person to be captured. I would hope that when we see the regulations, there will be some distinction that ensures that happens.

Hon. Chair, I was going to move on past definitions now to the division 2, "Waste Management Facilities." Under "Regulations for purposes of Division 2," it talks here in 76.21 about: "Without limiting section 138 (1) [general authority to make regulations], the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations as follows…."

Then it has a list, and under (b) it says: "prescribing actions that must be taken in relation to either or both of the following: (i) the management or reduction of specified greenhouse gases; (ii) the recovery of energy potential from specified greenhouse gases."

Could the minister give us some idea about what kind of actions he or the government has in mind in relation to those matters? What might that look like — those actions?

Hon. B. Penner: The types of actions that are contemplated under the subsection include requiring owners/operators to flare the methane — in other words, capture the methane and flare it instead of allowing it to simply escape into the atmosphere. The combustion process reduces the harmful effects of methane on the atmosphere.

The rule of thumb is that one tonne of methane is 21 times as harmful, in terms of the greenhouse gas effect, as one tonne of CO₂. But combusting it apparently eliminates that mathematical equation, so that it's roughly a 1-to-1 comparison instead of a 21-times-worse scenario.

The other contemplation is that depending on the size of the landfill, the government may require the next step, which is not simply to combust the methane to reduce its harmful effects on the atmosphere but actually to use the heat that is generated from the combustion process to generate useful energy — i.e., electricity — similar to what's happening at the Hartland Landfill north of Victoria or at the Metro Vancouver landfill in Delta.

S. Simpson: When I look at section 76.21(d), it says, "regulating and imposing requirements and prohibitions for the design, siting and operation of any works, activities or operations related to the management," etc., of these facilities. I can understand that.

Is it the expectation of the minister that the regulations that will be written will be very specific about where these facilities may be allowed to be located? It talks about specific kinds of design features that will be required in terms of design features, not in terms of outcomes. I understand there will be requirements in terms of outcomes.

Hon. B. Penner: This subsection gives us additional authority to what currently exists under the Environmental Management Act, where we do have the authority to establish certain requirements around the design or location of a facility where waste is being generated at that site. This makes it clear that we also have authority to establish design requirements for a facility on a site that's receiving waste from off site, from somewhere else.

Your typical landfill itself isn't generating the waste; it's collecting the waste from some other location. The legal drafters who looked at this section determined that the existing section didn't give us the clear authority that we might want to have in the future to make sure we're adequately handling waste at landfills.

S. Simpson: Just to clarify that, might this section then…? Since this is a rewrite or based on advice from legislative drafters, is this a section that could be used, for example, to help make decisions about where Metro Vancouver ends up putting new facilities or how they proceed at the end of the day with waste management issues? Might this be used in that example?

Hon. B. Penner: This subsection, as I was saying, gives us additional authority, particularly around dealing with the greenhouse gases that are generated from the facility. Without identifying any particular community upfront, there are quite a number of landfills around the province.

This would give us the authority to require that certain local governments or perhaps other entities — whoever they may be — that are operating landfills deal with them in a way that helps reduce the harmful effects of the greenhouse gases that emanate from the decomposition of waste materials located in landfills.

S. Simpson: Subsection (e) essentially talks about exemptions and the ability of the cabinet to make decisions on exemptions of those who might fall into this section. Could the minister give us some sense of what those exemptions might look like and what was anticipated in the inclusion of this section to be able to exempt people?

Hon. B. Penner: This subsection, I'm told, parallels an existing regulation-making authority that is in section 138(2)(s) of the Environmental Management Act. In terms of what kinds of exemptions might be contemplated, we don't have a firm idea of that yet. We want to engage in some consultation with the people most likely to be affected by this regulation. That would be the owners and operators of landfills in British Columbia.

It's conceivable that a landfill under a certain size may have a different requirement than one that's over a certain size. Another way of stating it is that typically the larger the landfill, the more economic it may be to engage not just in methane capture and combustion but in methane capture, combustion and electricity production, and then feeding that back into the grid as a green source of electricity. But it probably wouldn't be economic to do that with a very small landfill.

There are going to be some discussions, I understand, taking place over the next weeks and months before we establish the exact threshold or standard.

S. Simpson: In the instance — and I didn't see it in the bill, but maybe I missed it — that there was contemplation of exemption for a facility and that was being looked at, is there any consultation process of a public nature that would occur if there was a decision to take a facility out of the general regulations and say, for what may be good reasons, that this facility is going to be treated differently than others for these reasons, and then to allow some public comment on that. Is that anticipated?

Hon. B. Penner: A common practice for the ministry before implementing a specific regulation is to release what's called an intentions paper through our website and also delivered in a targeted way to stakeholders that have been identified by the ministry in advance through previous correspondence or dealings. It is the ministry's intention to have an intentions paper process with regard to this particular issue around thresholds and the scope of this regulation.

In fact, I'm advised that just yesterday the ministry released an intentions paper on this very topic. It's entitled Landfill Gas Regulation: Policy Intentions Paper for Consultation, a very catchy title indeed. I'm not exactly sure how much time is contemplated for response, but I believe the response date is sometime in September.

The member will be pleased to know that in the second paragraph it's noted that…. Of course, we have to first pass this bill that we're debating now for such a regulation that is contemplated in this intentions paper to come to fruition. I don't want to prejudge the judgment of this Legislative Assembly about whether or not they will be endorsing this bill. But should they choose to do so, an intentions paper is now on the website and, I presume, distributed to interested parties such as local governments.

S. Simpson: I look forward to spending my evening reading the intentions paper.

Continuing on, subsection (f) talks about the imposition of "monitoring and reporting requirements in relation to" and then lists a series of items around greenhouse gases, recovery of energy potential, handling, treating, transporting, etc. — a number of items there.

In terms of the issues around monitoring, reporting and that oversight, is it the intention of the minister to use — and he can correct my term here if he likes — what I viewed as sort of the industry stewardship model as the way to approach these matters — i.e., saying to industry: "Here are our expectations about what you'll do. Now you have responsibility to be able to monitor and report that back to us so that we're satisfied that you are accomplishing the objectives that we've set"?

Is that sort of industry stewardship model the expectation of how Bill 31 will generally proceed?

Hon. B. Penner: First of all, this new provision is similar to an existing one in section 138(3)(f) of the Environmental Management Act. But here the main difference is that we're adding a provision specifically related to greenhouse gas emissions, and that's kind of a common theme.

Previously, the Environmental Management Act did not specifically regulate greenhouse gas emissions. So that is what's new here, and that is what this legislation, I think, is basically defined by. It's targeting greenhouse gas emissions for the first time.

In terms of the nature of the reporting requirements, they will be fairly prescriptive. That is our intention. We'll be pretty specific about what and when things must be reported. In fact, apparently it's been pointed out to me that in this recently released intentions paper, on page 5 there is an indication about what our expectations or at least our proposals are in terms of reporting requirements.

The due date for people who have comments or suggestions in response to this intentions paper is September 15, 2008. That's longer than our normal consultation process or time lines for an intentions paper, but we felt it was appropriate here to provide some extra time, given that much of this is tilling new ground.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that this is much more prescriptive, particularly as it relates to greenhouse gases, which is the bill's intention of course.

But getting back to that question. In this intentions paper, the ministry will be quite specific about what it requires to be monitored — that is what I hear the minister saying — and about how it reports that monitoring to government so that government has a good sense.

But it is the intention of the ministry that this will be done by industry. It will be industry stewardship. They will take the directive from government. They will do the monitoring, produce the reports and give those reports to government.

Then government will obviously assess the accuracy of the reports in some fashion. That's how information will be got by government around the compliance — whether these industries are in fact in compliance with the expectations of the government on these issues.

Hon. B. Penner: The member is essentially correct. There will be reporting requirements. There are audit-

ing provisions that are contemplated in the act, so we can follow up and audit individuals or entities that are reporting.

In addition, I've just noted this on page 5 of the stated intentions paper. It says: "The ministry intends to compile and post for public information annual summaries of types and amounts of landfill gas captured — including, specifically, methane gas emissions — and amounts and types of beneficial uses." That's just to give the member some indication of what we're planning to do.

There's also a chart just above that, describing various threshold amounts of waste in terms of the total amount already in place as well as the amount that comes to a landfill on an annual basis. Then beside that is an indication of how often they have to report on various things. It appears to me that there seems to be a trend or theme of annual reporting of a variety of different things such as tonnage, sources, composition, projections and nature of any organic diversion programs, to name just a few.

S. Simpson: This next question relates to that and relates a little bit to the resources that will be available within government for audit and oversight functions. I'm interested in knowing what resources are expected to be available to do this new piece of work and who will do it to provide the audit and oversight function for government on this stewardship model.

If the minister wanted to take a second, because I will ask similar questions when it comes to division 3 and division 4 around coal-based electricity and emissions from electricity generation…. So if the minister has the ability to answer them all at once, then we'll just get those questions out of the way at once here.

Hon. B. Penner: I've sent a note to request staff from the ministry that perform this function. But the short answer is that this will be a responsibility of the environmental stewardship division of the Ministry of Environment.

As to just what resources they've identified for this task, the one that the member refers to in terms of sequestration activities related to electricity generation from the combustion of coal, I'm not able to give a detailed answer at this time, but I have sent a message for staff from the environmental protection division to get here as soon as they can.

S. Simpson: I'll just move past that, and when the appropriate staff get here, we can go back to that question.

I'm going to move on to division 3, "Coal-based Electricity Generation," for a moment here. When we look at section 76.31(1) and (3) and actually move down into the compliance reports, this obviously talks a lot about how we measure amounts of greenhouse gases. Could the minister tell us how the government expects to measure those greenhouse gases? What are the tools available to be able to measure those emissions for government purposes?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that the same reports will be used here as are used with the climate registry as well as in Europe and elsewhere, where you take a particular type of fossil fuel, multiply the volume consumed in a given period of time and multiply it by a certain conversion factor. Different fuels have different carbon intensities, and even different types of coal have different types of carbon intensities. So you would take the number that has been identified in terms of carbon emissions per tonne of a particular type of coal and then multiply that by the amount used.

S. Simpson: Then the assumption is, because we go back and talk about the stewardship model, that's what the ministry and the government will give to those operators of facilities — this very specific formula to say, "Here's how you have to measure, and here's how you have to report," in very specific terms so that there's a consistency across the board in terms of the reporting and the emissions tracking so that we're all kind of working from the same song sheet here. Is that a safe assumption?

S. Simpson: If I follow down under the compliance reports a little further, it talks about: "The operator of a coal-based generating facility must submit a supplementary report to the director within the prescribed period after the operator becomes aware that (a) information in a previous report under this section did not completely and accurately disclose the required information, or (b) information required to be reported in a previous report has changed."

How does that work in terms of the potential for penalties? Everybody makes mistakes. There's an error made, and the error is identified and corrected, and that's fine. But is there a time, if there's consistency with these errors, that an administrative penalty or some kind of penalty then comes into play at some point? How does that work?

Hon. B. Penner: It's my expectation that the administrative penalty or penalties would not kick in until after the date for the filing of supplementary reports has passed.

S. Simpson: In terms of these reports, whether it be the primary report or the supplementary report that's identified under the compliance reports, are those going to be public documents, or are they going to be partially public documents, assuming that there may be some proprietary information in them? Generally, the information about levels of emissions, levels of reductions, those key big questions…. Is that going to be public information or available to the public, or will that not be released?

Hon. B. Penner: Just flipping ahead a couple of pages. It's been pointed out to me that subsection 76.52(3)(b) refers to the fact that the prohibition against disclosure of information does not relate to the two topics here in 76.31(1)(a) and (b). Stated differently, this information can be released in these two subsections, and it's the government's intention to in fact release that type of information. It may well be posted on our ministry website and could be posted, as well, on some kind of a public registry.

S. Simpson: So it's based on that section. I've got a couple of questions about that when we get there. But just to be clear, the minister is saying that the information can be released and that it would be the government's plan…. It is this minister's plan, certainly, that that information would be made available to the public through the website or some other vehicle.

Is there anything in the legislation that requires that information to be released and that doesn't make it discretionary that it be released?

Hon. B. Penner: The bill contains provisions for regulation-making authority about what types of information must be released and/or made public, so those are provisions that we can rely on to make it mandatory to release information. But it certainly is the government's intention to release the type of information that we've just been discussing.

S. Simpson: We'll get to a question about this section and when the regulations anticipate being prepared. But when we look through the regulatory regime, it talks about establishing the greenhouse gas emissions that are deemed to be attributable to the use of coal for the generation of electricity and how much they are and some discussion about where the reductions or emissions might come from.

The question I have for the minister is: is there somewhere in the regulation — or should we expect, relatively soon, when the regulations are written for this — some identification of what level of emissions we're talking about that Bill 31 will capture under its jurisdiction, based on what the government knows, what the level of emissions are and what the expectation is that the application of this bill will be in terms of reducing those emissions so that we start to get to keep a bit of the scoresheet about how well we're doing on getting to 33 percent?

Hon. B. Penner: In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, generally from the province of British Columbia, that information will be required to be reported at certain intervals, as determined by the bill that we passed last fall. That was the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act.

This particular section or division that we're talking about deals with electricity. The member will know that the requirement for any proposed coal-fired electricity generation is zero. It's essentially zero greenhouse gas emissions through carbon capture and sequestration of any CO₂ and for other forms of electricity generation that may result in greenhouse gas emissions. I guess you could think of natural gas as a likely example, a potential example. There's the requirement to, essentially, report those emissions and then offset those emissions, whatever they are, using credible forms of offsets.

For other forms of electricity that don't generate greenhouse gas emissions to begin with…. That's not something to be concerned about, whether it's large-scale hydro, small hydro, wind or some other forms of potential electricity generation. But as indicated previously, it is our expectation and intention to disclose the information that's reported about actual emissions and the offsets that potential generators are relying on.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the answer and the legislation that we adopted previously that set the targets and had some explanation of how those targets would be reported. The reason I ask the question is that with this bill and other legislation we're dealing with in this session…. There are a variety of bills here that will all, in different ways, have different impacts on the target of reducing emissions, and they come at it in different ways.

I'm trying to determine whether somebody who is looking for some detail over the big numbers that we'll get based on the targets legislation that was passed, which will report out some of the big numbers on, "Here's what our emissions are, and here's what our objectives are…."

Presumably, when we see the 2012 and 2016 objectives of the Climate Action Team and however cabinet deals with those recommendations when they come, we'll be able to see what we're doing for 2012 and 2016, as well as for 2020. Is there going to be some ability for people who are doing a more detailed assessment to be able to look and say, "Okay, we're doing fine in terms of zero emissions on electricity," or on coal-fired power or on any of the things we'll talk about later this afternoon — or on emissions on vehicles, when we get to that?

I'm just wondering whether, under the compliance in these reports, we are going to have the level of detail that will allow people who do that research to be able to look and say, "We're getting there in these areas. In other areas maybe we need to do something differently" — to be able to do that assessment. Will that be available as it relates to the pieces that are covered by Bill 31?

Hon. B. Penner: There are a couple of ways to get at the information the member refers to. First, dealing with this bill and the provisions we've talked about already under 76.31(1)(a) and (b)…. Those two subsections talk about the types of information that are required to be reported, and it's our government's intention to release that information.

Just for the record, I'll read it into the record: "(a) the attributable greenhouse gas emissions referred to in section 76.3 (1), as determined in accordance with the

regulations, (b) if applicable, the capture and storage, or capture and sequestration, of an amount of emissions from the facility under section 76.3 (2)." So that's one way information will be disclosed.

The second way is — again referring to the act we passed last fall, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act, Bill 44 back then, if anyone is keeping track…. In section 4 it says: "Beginning with a report on 2008 BC greenhouse gas emissions, and continuing with a report for every subsequent even-numbered calendar year, the minister must, as soon as reasonably practicable for each year, make public a report respecting" — and then I'll skip to sub (c) — "the actions that have been taken to achieve that progress."

Presumably, that report would delve into various reductions or increases, depending on the sector. So that would be a source of information.

Currently information is broken down by Environment Canada reporting. The member will know that every year Environment Canada and Statistics Canada work together, and I think Natural Resources Canada, too, has a role in it. They release greenhouse gas emissions data for the country as a whole, as well as by province.

We've just received the latest data. The most recently compiled data is for the year 2006, and in the case of British Columbia, it shows a decrease of 3.2 percent in B.C.'s total greenhouse gas emissions in 2006 compared to 2005. They've also revised the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to British Columbia for the year 2005. It was a downward revision, indicating, I think, about a 1.6 or a 1.8 percent reduction from 2004 levels.

So if you take a two-year period, greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia from the year 2004 to 2006 have declined approximately 5 percent, according to the National Inventory Report produced by the federal government and just released a couple days ago. It's apparently now posted on their website.

That's not to say that we don't have a lot more work to do. Clearly, we do. People will be poring through the numbers to try and determine if there's any type of trend or for what accounts for the decreases. The purpose for my mentioning it here is that the federal government does provide a breakdown by different sectors and industries in terms of their contribution to B.C.'s total greenhouse gas emissions.

One document I've got, entitled "Emissions Summary for British Columbia," shows total greenhouse gas emissions for electricity and heat generation for the year 2006 were 1.47 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalents — static in terms of comparison to the previous year. But the member will note that I said electricity and heat generation.

There's an additional document that I have in my hand, "Annex 9." There are a lot of pages that were released, so it takes a while to get to the numbers. Looking at this document, it delves into, particularly, electricity generation and GHG emission details for British Columbia. This document shows that overall greenhouse gas emissions, in terms of CO₂ equivalents in British Columbia for the year 2006 from the electricity generation sector, were 830,000 tonnes — less than one million tonnes, I believe, if I'm reading this correctly.

It's down 50,000 tonnes, I believe, from the previous year, 2005, and down from 2.3 million tonnes in the year 2001. So it's been a decrease over the last number of years. One can speculate that that's due to a decreased use of facilities such as Burrard Thermal, which, while they burn natural gas, still produce a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions when they're in heavy use.

S. Simpson: Those numbers are important, and I'm glad that the ministry or the government is going to do some more detailed analysis of why emissions work the way they do in terms of reductions in that.

I would hope the minister would agree that on this project, the issue around climate change, it's very important that we get our head around this and do it. It also, I believe, will be deemed to be a work-in-progress for some time to come, because a lot of the approaches and the initiatives that are being advanced now haven't necessarily been tested.

When you do things that are as complex as some of what's suggested here…. The ability to have to go back and rethink them sometimes is a reality of this, I believe. That kind of data will certainly be helpful in terms of our determining whether things are working as effectively as we might like or whether they need to be re-evaluated, and that will best be determined…. Maybe not "best," but certainly those kinds of numbers will be a significant part of that determination.

Moving into section 76.42. It talks about new electricity generation facilities. It goes on and speaks about what the expectations are about regulations for facilities developed after February 27, 2007, and talks about existing facilities and their compliance requirements.

Could the minister just explain a little bit about the difference between the new and the existing electricity-generating facilities and how they will need to comply under this legislation? What are they going to have to do to comply, and what's the difference between their requirements of new and existing and the use of credits — that whole kind of approach?

Hon. B. Penner: My understanding is that any new facility, one that doesn't currently exist, would be captured, effective immediately, or upon this legislation coming into legal force and effect. Pre-existing facilities — for example, Burrard Thermal, if that facility is still going to be generating at that time — would be required to meet these requirements by 2016.

S. Simpson: I'm going to move ahead, because we do have lots to do this afternoon, to division 5, the general attributes on page 8 of the bill. I just have a couple of questions around "Inspection powers for purposes of divisions 3 and 4." It talks about inspections. It talks about: "Without limiting the powers of an officer under any other provision of this Act…."

Could the minister tell us: is the officer a conservation officer, or is the officer somebody else?

Hon. B. Penner: A good question from the member. Section 76.51(1), as you'll note, says: "Without limiting the powers of an officer…." So it refers to that term. I've just checked. The term "officer" is defined in the existing Environmental Management Act. The term "officer" is defined thus: "(a) a person or class of persons employed by the government or a municipality and designated in writing by a director as an officer, or (b) a conservation officer."

In practice, I believe what this means is that the environmental protection division of the ministry would be responsible for these duties. But we have the capability, through the existing definition, to have the director designate a municipal officer or employee to also fulfil some functions under this act, if that's deemed appropriate. A conservation officer would also have authority under the act to perform any of the tasks described herein.

However, in practice, it's the staff of the environmental protection division that do the routine inspections or follow-ups. If those routine inspections lead them to believe that there is significant non-compliance — I'm referring, in my mind anyway, to a recent example arising out of Abbotsford, and the member probably knows what I'm alluding to — then they contact the conservation officer service when they believe it's now past the point of just doing inspections but time to investigate a possible prosecution.

Somewhere, at that point, a handoff occurs, and the CO service takes the lead, still with support from the environmental protection division. At a certain point, the environmental protection division staff would say, "Over to the CO service," to lead an investigation which they believe would likely lead to charges or at least the recommendation for charges.

S. Simpson: I do have questions related here to any expectations because of the additional work. Obviously, putting this set of regulatory regimes around greenhouse gases in place for industry is going to significantly increase the amount of work that ministry officials have on their plates.

I know that the minister is expecting staff that can provide him some advice around the audit and oversight question we talked about earlier, and I'm happy to leave this question if it's better to be left for when somebody can answer it. It's a question around staff resources and expectations that the government has about the implementation of Bill 31 and what that means in terms of increased resource requirements for the ministry to be able to do the work that these new regulations will require.

Hon. B. Penner: Additional resources were provided to the Ministry of Environment for the policy development work that led to this legislation and other pieces that we've been discussing this session. Some of the information the member is looking for might be more appropriately addressed during budget estimates discussion, which I understand may be taking place as soon as tomorrow, according to what I've been told by a certain House Leader. We'll see what happens with that.

I don't have the specific details, but I can make a general comment, though, that some of these provisions don't kick in until 2016 in terms of existing generating facilities and the requirements that they have to offset their emissions so that they're net zero. Some of the extra oversight that would be required doesn't take place until 2016. That does give us some time to consider allocation of resources within the ministry, but I can probably give the member a better answer tomorrow.

S. Simpson: We'll get at that at some point tomorrow, I assume. I'm going to move past…. We talked about the section under "Confidentiality…." We've already had some discussion about what will be made public, so I won't go back over that again. I think that at this point, in terms of sections, that actually completes my questions on section 2.

S. Simpson: Just a question in regard to the automatic administrative penalties identified in 115.1. We know that when we look at offences farther on, the offences can be significant. I believe that one set of offences is in the $1 million range, and the other one is in the $200,000 range.

It talks here, under subsection 2, about how "an administrative penalty under this section must be paid to the government on or before the date…." What are we looking at in terms of administrative penalties? When we consider that offences are in the$1 million range, what kind of range are we talking about for penalties, under administrative penalties?

Hon. B. Penner: The approach taken here will be similar to the approach that we discussed yesterday with the cap-and-trade legislation. We want to have a similar approach to what our partners in the WCI are going to be adopting, so we'll be having some ongoing discussions with them.

The model will be similar, in that you probably want to have a multiple of what you think a company may see as a benefit for skirting the regulations so that, should they run afoul of our regulations and not comply, they know with certainty that the amount they'll pay will be greater than the amount they would save by skirting the regulations.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that point. What we don't want to occur is the cost of doing business to end-run the regulatory requirements to be a cost that isn't of significant enough impact on the company that they think it's worth doing that versus meeting the requirements. I'll look forward to seeing some information at some point about what that set of penalties is.

Moving to page 12, under "Imposed administrative penalties — failure to apply emission offsets." Under subsection 1(a) at the top of the page, it says, "If the director is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that…" and then goes into a list. Could the minister explain what "a balance of probabilities" means in terms of this?

Hon. B. Penner: The member's question is eerily reminiscent of a law school exam question, so it's causing me to have some flashbacks here, not all entirely positive. But with some trepidation, I'll endeavour to answer the question.

The contrast is the criminal standard of proof required by courts — proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There have been many lectures and books and, I suspect, court decisions written about what constitutes proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But proof on the balance of probabilities is the civil standard that's applied by our courts. It typically is referred to as 50 percent plus one, in terms of what's most likely to have taken place.

Changing venues completely, an example might be a well-published murder prosecution a number of years ago, where a certain former NFL football player was acquitted of a charge of murder but subsequently was successfully sued for damages in a civil proceeding. Substantial damages were required, arising out of the same set of facts or circumstances.

The court found that there wasn't sufficient evidence to meet the criminal test of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but a subsequent court decision in the same state, California, found that there was sufficient evidence on a civil standard to assign culpability or liability and then to assess damages. So what we're talking about here is the civil standard of, in layman's terms, 50 percent plus one in terms of probability.

S. Simpson: So I would assume — because I know that some of this is appealable to the Environmental Appeal Board — that that's the interpretation that the appeal board has when they make judgments about appeals. I'll assume that that's the case.

I'm just going to step back again to the appeals or the administrative penalties. So if I'm to understand this correctly — just to see how this works — the director makes the determination that there's been some breach of the regulation or that the reporting is not adequate or accurate or whatever and supplies a certificate, a fine to the operator.

The operator has a limited amount of time to make a decision on whether to appeal or not, whether to say: "Okay, I did it. I'm culpable." They pay or they appeal or they ignore it, and then it moves to a different level and potentially becomes an offence under the offence category. Is that roughly how this works?

Hon. B. Penner: If an entity or individual is assessed an administrative penalty and they do not pay the indicated amount, that becomes a debt owing to the province of British Columbia, and I believe civil action could be initiated on behalf of the province to recover that debt. It wouldn't necessarily mean that charges would be laid.

Charges may be laid even in a situation where someone has not been assessed an administrative penalty. It depends on the seriousness of the infraction and the judgment of the investigating officers or the officer under the legislation. There will be a continuum or a number of options that people working under the act have in terms of what they consider to be the appropriate recourse, depending on the infraction that occurs.

B. Simpson: This bill now switches to the Forest Act, and I believe the minister may have to change staff. If we can take a few minutes until the minister brings the appropriate staff in, that would be fine.

The remaining sections of this bill are actually two major sections for the Forest Act. The first has to do with the introduction of some tenures — how people access our land base for fibre for a bioenergy facility. Then the next section, the final section of the bill, goes into giving the chief forester the right to apportion areas of the land base for different types of cut or for different reasons.

We're going to canvass, under section 15, the bioenergy tenure. I wonder if the minister could just spend a few minutes explaining the general intent of this tenure and the changes to the Forest Act, and then I have some explicit questions. But what is it that the government is attempting to do with this act in a general sense?

Hon. B. Penner: Fairly generally, because the member's question was fairly general, the purpose of this suite of amendments contained in this bill but pertaining to the Forest Act will be to provide for new licensing provisions to enable better use of wood residue from mountain pine beetle–attacked timber as a source of power, thereby encouraging the development of the bioenergy sector. The amendments will give government the authority to issue a forest licence directly to successful applicants responding to calls for power from B.C. Hydro.

The purpose here is to streamline the issuing of the licences and eliminate the government's obligation to conduct a duplicate competitive award process in these circumstances.

B. Simpson: So will all successful bidders to the B.C. Hydro call be able to obtain a new tenure under this proposed tenure?

Hon. B. Penner: It's been pointed out to me that the amendment that constitutes section 13.2 gives the Minister of Forests the authority to designate a particular energy supply contract as a bioenergy supply contract and to then specify the maximum allowable amount of cut that would be made available for that purpose. I am told that in practice, through policy, the Minister of

Forests will designate only those contracts offered by B.C. Hydro that are specific to the bioenergy sector. So it's not just any call for power, but the Minister of Forests will designate particular calls that are contemplated in this section.

B.C. Hydro, in turn, will have a dialogue in advance of them issuing calls for proposals or awarding contracts. They'll have a dialogue with the chief forester so that they don't offer contracts in excess of the available supply of timber. They will be advised by the chief forester of the amount of timber that could be made available for this purpose and will tailor their call for power and their offer of contracts accordingly.

B. Simpson: I will come to those questions about how that's determined when we get to section 13.2.

With respect to my question, though, I asked if all successful bidders on the bioenergy call will be able to get access to this tenure. It's my understanding that B.C. Hydro is doing two calls. The first call is supposedly for existing tenure holders who would not require an additional tenure. That call is in due process just now. The results of that call won't be out until the early part of June.

If we get a sufficient response to that and if existing tenure holders or pulp mill operations or whoever has access to existing fibre opportunities…. If that results in a sufficient production of bioenergy, will this tenure be necessary, then?

Hon. B. Penner: With respect to the member's question about whether or not B.C. Hydro might still need additional sources of electricity after completion of the first call, I'm advised that it will likely take somewhat longer than what the member is suggesting it will take. I think he had said that in June they'll have the results. I'm not sure of the exact date, but I think it might be somewhat longer than what the member is contemplating.

Whether or not B.C. Hydro requires additional supplies of electricity is going to be assessed by B.C. Hydro. They have an integrated electricity planning process where they do energy forecasting, and they have to report to the B.C. Utilities Commission to justify their assumptions. That's a fairly involved process, so I'll leave it to the professionals to determine what amount of electricity may be required.

In terms of what fibre supply may be available, I'm told that the Ministry of Forests has identified a supply of timber that would be available regardless of the results of the first call. As the member noted, the first call, which is currently in process, is for existing tenure holders. The second call would be about awarding addition tenure.

B. Simpson: Okay, the first call, as the industry understands it, is to be conducted on the presumption that no new tenures would be issued. There would not be a fibre supply tenure or a bioenergy tenure done. That's the presumption that they've been given in order to respond to B.C. Hydro's call for bioenergy power. If that's the case and if that does meet the needs, then one could presume that this change to the Forest Act becomes unnecessary — if it meets B.C. Hydro's needs for a bioenergy call.

That's the point that the industry has been trying to make with the government. Why go into this so hastily — and for a whole bunch of other reasons, which I'll canvass shortly — when we haven't completed that first call with the existing tenure holders? In fact, one of the senior members of the Ministry of Forests said at a bioenergy meeting last fall that no policy changes would be required in order for us to move into bioenergy, which caused some gasps in the room at the time.

We need to be crystal-clear whether or not this change to the Forest Act, the possibility of an alternate tenure explicitly for bioenergy, will be needed if, in fact, the existing licensees can meet B.C. Hydro's call or B.C. Hydro's apportionment for energy from bioenergy sources.

Let me flip it on its head. If a company gets a successful bioenergy supply contract under the first call, would they be eligible, then, to access additional timber or additional fibre through this new tenure that is proposed? Would they be able to increment their fibre supply through this tenure if they're a first-call successful bidder?

Hon. B. Penner: I think the most succinct way for me to answer this question is that we are not contemplating awarding any of this tenure to people participating in the first call, for the purposes of the first call that's currently underway for bioenergy.

But we are also not going to disqualify someone who is successful in the first call from participating in the second call. They will be entitled to bid competitively, and they'll have to be competitive with others in order to be successful in the second call. If they are participating in the second call, then they can play by the same rules as the others participating in a second call.

B. Simpson: I want to be very clear about this, because it is a question that the industry has about the nature of this tenure.

If a company — particularly pulp mills, which are the ones that are for the most part bidding under the first call — is successful on the first call for bioenergy power, they have to meet the requirements for that bioenergy contract under existing fibre supply.

If for some reason they believe that over the long-term time frame of them producing energy, they have to get more fibre than what they've got available to them, they will then have to go through another call process in order to qualify to get access to fibre under this tenure.

Is that a correct understanding of the constraints that will be put on them if they are successful in the first call?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that B.C. Hydro, before awarding contracts to proponents in the first call-for-energy proposals, will undertake a detailed fuel plan analysis. It's a requirement that the proponents put forward a detailed business plan or business case about their fuel supply situation. B.C. Hydro is not going to take on the fuel supply risk for these contracts, and they will scrutinize the plans put forward by the proponents.

I expect that they'll do the same for the second round as well, for the general call for bioenergy proposals that will come later.

B. Simpson: Thank you for that. I don't know if the minister…. There's a cartoon floating around that speaks volumes to what's going on just now in this sector. There's a Brink's truck that pulls up to a sawmill. It's there to collect the sawdust and the chips because it's becoming that much of a premium, as the sawmilling industry comes down, to get access to those raw materials.

Risk analysis for a cogeneration facility untenured specifically for that purpose is a very risky business, because you don't know the vagaries of the marketplace and what's going on. If the first-call winners don't have the ability to get access to these tenures without going through an independent call process, we could be whole-log chipping in this province like crazy in order to simply feed the bioenergy contract requirements under the first call.

I think that's a question British Columbians ought to be asked before we engage in this — whether that's what we want to do, to default down to standing timber to power through a whole log chipping process. I think British Columbians deserve that as a public consultation process.

Let's get into the meat of this, because it answers the question about whether or not the two are linked. The bioenergy supply contract definition is the B.C. Hydro call for power. The successful proponent or bidder gets a bioenergy supply contract.

Then in 13.1 it goes on and talks about how to apply for a cut. It says, under definitions on page 16, "eligible bioenergy application." That's the application for the non-replaceable forest licence — someone who's got a successful bioenergy supply contract.

My question to the minister is…. This seems like we're setting up a chicken-and-egg. How does an independent power producer, which I presume would be the proponents or the companies that would bid on this, ensure that they have the right cost configuration, that they know what the supply is and that they've got all of that information in order to put a successful bid in to B.C. Hydro, which will then — according to the minister, if they do the same on the second bid as they did on the first bid — do some kind of risk assessment on whether or not they've got the fuel supply they need to be a successful producer of bioenergy?

They get the bioenergy contract, and then they've got to come to the Ministry of Forests and negotiate their fibre supply agreement.

Am I understanding this correctly — that they don't have any fibre supply agreement in place prior to being a successful bidder, that they need to have a contract with B.C. Hydro before they enter into negotiations with the Ministry of Forests to get access to the land base? Is that the correct order?

Hon. B. Penner: The term I used earlier is that it's something of an iterative process, and I think that term applies with respect to this question as well.

As I indicated earlier, the Ministry of Forests does some scoping as to the amount of timber supply that they believe is available. They make that information available to B.C. Hydro but also to the proponent and, frankly, to the public as well. I'm told that right now on their website, the Ministry of Forests is indicating about 4.3 million cubic metres is available for up to 20-year terms.

B.C. Hydro is advised of that. They receive the bids. They assess them and I guess nominally apportion the amount that would be required for those bids that are the more promising ones. Then that information gets relayed back to the Minister of Forests as to who the successful bidders are in B.C. Hydro's eyes.

That initiates a process where the Minister of Forests may award the tenure to the appropriate parties, the appropriate proponents who have been selected by B.C. Hydro as the successful bidders. At some point, then a forest licence would be issued, but not until, I believe, a facility would be actually constructed. That would be a condition, I guess, of the licence — that a facility would have to be actually constructed.

Based on that, I'm advised there is sufficient certainty or assurance that the proponents believe they could go and secure financing to get their projects done. As to just how or why that is, it might be better to ask the various proponents or independent power producers exactly how those financing arrangements work. But I would suspect that this iterative process I've just described has been the subject of considerable policy work over the last year or so since the government has announced our intentions to pursue a bioenergy strategy.

B. Simpson: Well, I can tell the minister, and I'm sure the staff there know, that there is considerable contention right now about our annual allowable cut levels — about whether or not they're sustainable long term, about whether or not there's actually volume there for the existing licensees, let alone adding an additional licensee.

This tenure is also a tenure for standing timber, not just waste. There are questions about the viability of actually bringing this material in and creating energy from it. The government's own studies question the economic viability of this entire enterprise. To my knowledge there hasn't been one iota of public consultation — not one — on moving down this path.

There have been some consultations that have occurred with different sectors. The pellet industry has

written a very strongly worded letter to the minister asking what happens to them. I guess my question would be: why isn't this a pellet licence? Are we going to start issuing pellet licences now? Are we going to issue bioethanol licences? How are we going down this path?

The pulp industry has expressed their concerns, the sawmilling industry has expressed their concerns, and the pellet industry has expressed their concerns. That's the context for the questions that I have here.

I'm conscious that we have very little time for debate here, and I guess I'll be forced to get to some of the nitty-gritty of this.

If we go to section 6, page 17, at the bottom of 13.1. It's subsection 13.1(6) where it talks about the applicant refusing to enter into a forest licence. As the applicant refuses to enter into the forest licence, then it looks as though the minister may just simply expand the annual allowable cut of an existing licence.

I wonder if the minister can explain. Under what circumstances would an applicant, which has a successful bioenergy contract…? The minister has already admitted that the ministry would have done the due-diligence work to make sure the fibre is available. A five-year non-renewable forest licence has been offered to them. They reject that offer. That's what this appears to indicate. So then the minister could simply increase the annual allowable cut on an existing or a pre-existing forest licence.

I don't understand how that works. I don't understand why you would then just be able to uplift an existing licence. Why not just do that as a matter of course? Maybe if the minister could explain the need for subsection (6) here and clarify why, if you're refusing one licence, you would get another licence lifted.

Hon. B. Penner: With respect to the member's specific question pertaining to subsection (6), that's there so that if there is a proponent that has been going through the process and gets to the final stage of actual construction of a project and for some reason changes their mind or backs out or is unable to complete, and the timber supply that had otherwise been allocated notionally for that proponent is no longer needed or able to be used by that proponent, then the Minister of Forests can redirect it to somebody else who is already part of the B.C. Hydro call process.

It couldn't be to some other forest company outside of the B.C. Hydro call-for-energy process. It's fairly restrictive, but it's to make sure that the fibre supply can be used for the bioenergy call.

Just to back up again, as I indicated earlier, there's information on the Ministry of Forests website indicating the total amount anticipated to be available for this purpose. I think it's estimated at 4.3 million cubic metres on an annual basis. That information is made available to B.C. Hydro and the proponent. People will make bids based on that.

Once B.C. Hydro determines the better bids, a certain amount is then notionally allocated to those proponents. They get busy, they secure financing, and hopefully, they build a facility. Upon achieving commercial operation, then they would be formally issued the licence.

If at that last stage they back out, change their minds, don't complete or whatever, then the amount of timber supply that had been notionally allocated to them could be redirected by the Minister of Forests — this is spelled out, I think, in subsection 6(b) — to another forest licence applicant who's been part of that process.

Now, I just want to respond to…. The member has twice now made kind of derogatory remarks about our efforts with respect to stimulating a bioenergy sector or pursuing bioenergy at all in British Columbia. This, I must say, I find surprising, considering that I'm holding in my hands a letter from the very same member, the member for Cariboo North, dated March 5, 2008, pleading with the government to make sure that his community is the very first one in British Columbia to have a bioenergy facility and project in his constituency. Yet here he's speaking in derogatory terms about this undertaking.

Just for the member's benefit, I'll read a section of the letter: "I noted with disappointment that despite waiting a long time for the strategy to be unveiled, the plan does not indicate which communities will get such a project or what the qualification criterion is." The final sentence: "I sincerely hope that you will make Quesnel one of the first community energy projects announced under your government's new bioenergy strategy."

From the letter, one would surmise that the member supports a bioenergy strategy and developing bioenergy facilities in British Columbia, presumably for the jobs and economic opportunities that they can provide British Columbians while meeting our target of attaining electricity self-sufficiency by 2016. I'm not sure if the member has now changed his view and wants to rescind the letter that he sent to the Premier on March 5 of this year. That's just over two months ago. Maybe he's had a change of heart since he wrote that letter.

B. Simpson: If that's the best defence that the minister can come up with on the substantive questions that are being asked here about how the government is going to go into bioenergy, it's rather pathetic.

As my letter does state, it's rather pathetic of the government to say in their bioenergy strategy that they're going to designate ten communities and not name even one of the communities. That was the point of my letter. When you've got communities that have been trying for the last 18 months to get the government's attention to try and figure out what's going on, then you would think that at least a few communities would be named.

Community energy facilities are very different than the kind of bioenergy that we're talking about here,

which is going on through the call for energy from the existing tenure holders and from the tenure that would be given under this. So it's not a change of heart. It's a difference in the nature of the energy production we're talking about.

Revelstoke has already got a community bioenergy facility that's very different from anything we're talking about under calls for proposals from B.C. Hydro. So let's pay attention to what's actually going on in this bill.

The question I have then, if we go on finally to this section…. We're on section 15, and I'm supposed to cut off debate here around five o'clock to move on to two other bills.

The minister has made a couple of comments about the 4.3 million, etc. Is that based on a new timber supply review in the mountain pine beetle area? Was a new timber supply review done?

As members of the Ministry of Forests staff know, there is contention in the mountain pine beetle area as to what the standing volume is, what the availability of tenure is. Are we oversubscribed, especially in the Vanderhoof area and the Quesnel area? Are the existing tenures already oversubscribed on the land base and the volume is not there? Has a new timber supply review been done in order to warrant that there's actually a long-term sustainable supply of bioenergy source tenure for this supposed emerging industry?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that the chief forester has in fact turned his mind to that question and is satisfied that there is and will be sufficient timber to meet that stated quantity over a 20-year period.

The member should keep in mind that as the years advance, the nature of the beetle-killed wood is changing. The percentage that is suitable for sawlog purposes will decrease over time, and an increasing percentage of the remaining beetle-killed wood will fall into the pulpwood category due to the effects of aging or decomposition following the kill of the tree by the pine beetle. The chief forester is certainly aware of that and has taken that into consideration for the purposes of his calculations.

B. Simpson: Just a quick question on section 18. To get back to the minister's comment about the percentage of the land base and the standing timber suitable for sawlog, it's my understanding from some of the work done on bioenergy that it also degrades with respect to bioenergy capabilities as well. The actual Btus in the wood reduce, because as they lose the resins and some of the fluids in the standing timber, you also lose energy production from that. I'm assuming somebody somewhere is taking that risk into account as well.

With respect to section 18, it gets into some of the forest licence to cut issues. My question is: will these new licences be subject to all forest management costs — silviculture, road costs, etc.? Will they be a normative forest licence subject to all of the costs associated with a normal forest licence?

Hon. B. Penner: Where it's a situation involving residue left behind from a harvesting operation that's already been undertaken, the district manager can award or facilitate the issuance of licences to companies to take away that residue, or the wood waste, and put it towards a beneficial use. It would be the responsibility of the underlying licence holder to do the silviculture work, etc.

However, in those areas where a new cut is taking place pursuant to this, then all the typical silviculture responsibilities — the road construction costs, etc. — would attach to the licensee that is undertaking the harvesting work.

B. Simpson: What about the Wildfire Act liabilities? Who holds that when you've got somebody else now on that land base? The existing tenure holder or licence holder has the Wildfire Act liabilities. Does this new, overriding tenure, if it's only for waste…? Who has responsibilities under the Wildfire Act, and who holds that liability?

Hon. B. Penner: The underlying licence holder would remain responsible for activities that they had undertaken. But for the new licence holder that's removing the residue, etc., they would be held accountable or responsible for their obligations under the Wildfire Act for anything associated with their activities.

B. Simpson: And the final one on this — and it's interspersed throughout, but I'll do it on this section — is the indication that the first-pass licensee, so somebody going in and taking the sawlogs off, has a requirement to inform the ministry office that they have completed their harvesting. The question, then, is: will there be a constraint placed on those licensees not to burn the waste? Right now that's what they would do. They would pile it, burn it and be done with it, and they would move on with their silviculture obligations.

Is there anywhere in this act that the local office will be directing these licensees not to burn the waste so that it is, in fact, available to whoever gets issued this new licence?

Hon. B. Penner: Section 34 adds regulation-making authority. So in 151.6(2)(e), a regulation "prohibiting an agreement holder from destroying timber referred to in paragraph (c) (i) in specified circumstances" can be made. So this would give the ability to make it illegal for someone to destroy the wood waste or residue in the manner that the member described.

B. Simpson: The Minister of Forests, at UBCM, indicated that the minimum licence necessary to make bioenergy appealing for independent power producers was 25 years. This licence is five years. My understanding is that it will be a non-renewable forest licence. What will the bidding process be post that?

My understanding, again, is that you can't attract the capital unless you've got some surety of fibre supply. These plants are very capital intensive, and 20 to 25 years was the minimum that the capital required in order to get it back and to make some profit off of it. Why is the licence only a five-year licence? And will they have to go through a rebidding process, or will it be a direct award?

Hon. B. Penner: There may be some slight confusion here. The issue that the member is talking about is described as applications for fibre supply licence to cut, which may or may not be used for bioenergy purposes. The understanding of the Ministry of Forests people with me is that it's unlikely that someone would take longer than five years to clean up the wood residue that's left beside a particular road or in a certain area.

That's different than the phase 2 direct-award forest licences that we were talking about a bit earlier, where licences would be awarded for a longer period of time, and there I think the length of tenure is 25 years.

B. Simpson: Again, I just…. Because we have no time for meaningful debate — and I will talk to the Minister of Forests about a more substantive briefing on these — I wonder if the minister could just give a sense of the intent. This is the ability of the chief forester to partition the cut for specific types of timber.

Again, if the minister could just give a general statement of intent: what is the utility of giving the chief forester these abilities in our current situation?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised the intent here is to make sure that the chief forester's allocation, in terms of the types of timber or the amounts, is respected.

B. Simpson: Can I just clarify that? Is this to address the issue of, for example, protecting understorey in the mountain pine beetle area? I know that the chief forester has that desire.

B. Simpson: Understorey, yeah. If you've got a spruce and fir understorey in certain mountain pine beetle stands, rather than going and taking those stands down, you'd allow those stands to regenerate. But right now, the chief forester can't designate and protect those specific areas through a partition of the cut.

That's one question that's out there. Is that the intent of the partition rights? Is the intent of the partition rights to push licensees into over 70 percent pine-leading stands? Again, right now we are harvesting our midterm timber supply, and the chief forester would prefer — but cannot direct — companies to go into the 70 percent pine-leading stands. So is that the intent of this partition — to give the chief forester the ability to do things like that?

Hon. B. Penner: It's not about the understorey per se, but the member is correct. It's to give the chief forester and the Ministry of Forests the ability to direct would-be harvesters towards the pine beetle trees specifically in the type of stand that the member is describing, where you might have 70 percent pine and 30 percent other, to make sure that they're focusing on the pine where the pine beetle problem is the problem.

Hon. B. Penner: I move that the committee report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 31, Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Emissions Standards) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. B. Penner: I call committee stage debate of Bill 39, Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Vehicle Emissions Standards) Act.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 39; S. Hammell in the chair.

S. Simpson: A couple of questions that relate to, again, some of the definitions. In terms of the fleet

average GHG emissions, could the minister explain exactly — just so that we all understand — sort of how that formula works? And "the weighted average greenhouse gas emissions of the motor vehicles" in the fleet — how will this work, how is the fleet determined, and how will it work to determine average GHG emissions across those vehicles?

Hon. B. Penner: For the purposes of this act, the term "fleet average greenhouse gas emissions" is a key term. The member is correct in identifying it. This is a weighted average to be calculated according to a prescribed formula of the greenhouse gas emissions generated by a specific group or fleet of a manufacturer's vehicles.

The fleet average greenhouse gas emissions value will be expressed in grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilometre driven. The value of the fleet average greenhouse gas emissions will be measured against the applicable fleet emissions standard, which is another key term used in part 2, in order to ascertain whether a particular fleet's greenhouse gas emissions exceed the allowable value.

The fleet emissions standard is essentially a value that functions as an upper limit or cap that will be established by regulation. In tandem with the fleet emissions standards established for similar legislation in California, the prescribed standard will be lowered incrementally to compel manufacturers to deliver cleaner vehicles to British Columbians.

S. Simpson: Just so that I can better understand this…. So we have a fleet, and the fleet may be made up of a variety of different models of vehicles within that manufacturer's collection of vehicles that they produce — Ford, Nissan, whatever it is. So they may have a variety of vehicles that have different emission levels.

Am I to understand, then, that there will be some average of the emissions of all the vehicles within — use Nissan as an example, just for the sake of an example — the Nissan fleet of different vehicles there? There would be some averaging done between the variety of vehicles, including maybe light-duty trucks plus small compact cars. Could they all be in the same fleet? Then that average is somehow used to determine what the average of a vehicle in that Nissan fleet would be for purposes of determining the emissions of that vehicle. Is that how this works?

Hon. B. Penner: The fleet average would be the average of the vehicles manufactured by a specific manufacturer. So using the member's example of Nissan, it's their fleet average. It is possible for a manufacturer to have two different fleets, depending on their size.

Borrowing from the California example, there are two categories: vehicles up to 3,750 pounds — I don't have my metric conversion calculator here, but I'm guessing that's about 1,500 kilograms, maybe 1,400 kilograms — and then a larger-sized category of bigger trucks from 3,751 pounds to 8,500 pounds of gross vehicle weight. So they could conceivably have two different averages, but in both cases, the average emissions for those two fleets will be expected to come down over time up to the year of 2016.

S. Simpson: We'll talk a little bit more about that when we get on to section 2. To clarify, the manufacturer, in the definitions: "…subject to paragraph (b), the actual manufacturer of the motor vehicle, if the manufacturer (i) is a British Columbia corporation within the meaning of the Business Corporations Act, or (ii) is deemed to carry on business in British Columbia within the meaning of that Act, or (b) the corporation or other person deemed under the regulations to be the manufacturer of the motor vehicle for the purposes of this Act."

Again using the Nissan or the Ford model or whatever, is there any circumstance that I'm missing here where it wouldn't be Ford or Nissan or whoever who is the manufacturer? Does this put the onus in any way on anybody else? I'm just not sure that I'm understanding the language. I just want to clarify.

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that in most cases auto manufacturers do their own importing of vehicles into British Columbia. But there may be situations or circumstances where a smaller manufacturer — perhaps one based in South Asia somewhere — would rely on someone else, a third-party importer, to bring the vehicles to British Columbia.

In that case, the section would give us the authority to deem the importer to be the manufacturer for the purposes of capturing them by this act and deeming those vehicles that are being imported by that particular importer as a fleet. So that would capture them and then have a requirement over time to drive down their emissions.

S. Simpson: Section 2 is the requirement for vehicle fleets to meet GHG emissions standards. Again, it goes back to talking about how: "…fleet average GHG standards for a vehicle does not exceed the applicable fleet emissions standard, or (b) if applicable, by the compliance deadline for the model year, apply credits in accordance with the regulations to match the amount by which the fleet average…emissions of the vehicle fleet exceed the applicable fleet emissions standard." So it comes back to the question that we started to talk about a little bit in the definitions.

When the manufacturer, whether it be the actual manufacturing company or an importer in some instances…. What process do they use — and it probably will come up again in section 4 a bit — when they calculate the fleet emissions standards? Is the determination, in terms of what's in that fleet and what's out, decided by regulation? Will it be a determination that certain of vehicles are in and certain of vehicles are

out? How is that determination going to be made about what part of a fleet is in for any particular category? Is it just a formula, or is it something more complex?

Hon. B. Penner: In essence, what I said earlier would pertain to determining whether vehicles are captured by this requirement. Essentially, it's about the weight of the vehicle. That would determine which category they fall into. Up to 3,750 pounds, or about 1,500 kilograms, would be the first category. Then the second tier would be heavier vehicles — up to 8,500 pounds, or about 4,000 kilograms.

There is the potential for exemptions of certain types of vehicles. I'm advised that in the case of California, emergency vehicles — certain types of ambulances or other emergency vehicles — are exempted. That could well be the case here as well.

S. Simpson: Just to pick up on that. Other than emergency or public service vehicles, for the lack of a better term, would the minister envision any other vehicles potentially being exempted — other than those that deliver public services, like fire trucks or ambulances or whatever?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm not able to think of any other examples at the moment that would be exempted.

S. Simpson: Section 3, when it talks about model year reports in relation to fleet emissions, says that "for each of the manufacturer's vehicle fleets for the model year," you get the fleet average GHG emissions for the fleet. We talked about that. That's this overall emission level for the fleet, whatever that category is, depending on — maybe not exclusively, but primarily — vehicle weight. So we have that.

Certainly, for some of the manufacturers, that's a significant number of vehicles that would fall within that category, and some of them are quite different in terms of size. You have vehicles that are sort of passenger cars, but some of them get pretty small, some of them pretty big. So we have quite an array there.

It says that you have an average emission there. Then you have "the accepted emissions value for each of the types of motor vehicles in the vehicle fleet." So does that mean that you will take your average for the fleet, which will be X amount of tonnes of emissions or whatever over the period of a year projected, based on miles driven or kilometres driven, presumably? Then do we expect that each type of vehicle has its accepted levels too, and what's the purpose of that number? Is it to determine that those vehicles shouldn't go over that number as well? Why do we have the two numbers?

Hon. B. Penner: In 3(1)(a)(ii), "the accepted emissions value for each of the types of motor vehicles in the vehicle fleet…." That's required so that the determination mentioned above, in 3(1)(a)(i), can be determined. In other words, you have to know the emissions for the individual vehicles that comprise the fleet in order to come up with the fleet average, I believe. I think I'm stating that correctly.

S. Simpson: In subsection 3(1)(a)(iii) it talks about alternative fleet emission standards that may be chosen at the option of the manufacturer. What is an alternative fleet emission standard?

Hon. B. Penner: Subsection 3(1)(a)(iii), to which the member directed his question, would allow us through regulation to do what California has apparently done, which is to set different standards for certain small vehicle manufacturers — small in size, that is, in terms of their business undertaking.

It's not at all certain that we would necessarily make use of that regulation-making authority here to set a different standard for a smaller producer of automobiles, but we have as much as possible tried to follow the California model in terms of the framework legislation here. It's an open question whether we would follow their lead entirely in terms of creating a separate standard for certain fairly minor, in size, producers of automobiles — I guess, certain rare types of automobiles or specialty automobiles. I think this is probably what this is aimed at.

S. Simpson: I accept the minister's comment that this may or may not be used. If there was a decision, and I'm sure when we get to compliance reports…. I'll just save the question for when I get to compliance reports.

If I go to subsection 3(1)(a)(iv), it talks about: "if applicable, the credits generated for the manufacturer from the vehicle fleet having fleet average GHG emissions that are lower than the applicable…standard."

I have a good year. I save some credits. I've got some on the plus side of the ledger. It then says I can transfer the credits to or from the manufacturer in the previous calendar year. So do I read that to say that if I'm an automobile manufacturer, and in 2015 my vehicles go over the emission targets, there's a cost to me because I have emitted more than I'm allowed to under Bill 39? Then in the next year I have a good year where I, in fact, save some credits and my emissions are below, I can apply those against the previous year to get off the hook for whatever the costs might be to me?

Hon. B. Penner: I am advised that in California they use what they refer to as a five-year deadline to offset debits that different manufacturers may accrue if they're not meeting the fleet average requirement. They have five years to offset that.

In our legislation we don't use the precise terminology, but the concept is similar. We talk about a compliance period, and it's also five years. We don't use the word "debits," but the concept is the same. So within a five-year period the manufacturers have the opportunity to trade forward or backward to make sure that they come out at the overall average that they're required to within that five-year period. Otherwise, they face the penalty.

California has apparently, through their Air Resources Board, preferred a longer term, like a five-year period, to give manufacturers some flexibility and an incentive to drive technological change over a longer term.

S. Simpson: The five-year period — is that a rolling five-year period? I know that in some of the legislation that's out, you have cycles. They might be three- or five-year cycles. The cap-and-trade, for example — they're in cycles, and each one comes up when it comes up. So this five-year compliance period, or whatever the term is for it — is that a rolling period that just keeps moving forward, or is it in blocks of five years that are based on a calendar block?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that it's a five-year rolling period. So if manufacturer A exceeded their allowed fleet average in the year 2010, they would have until 2015 to make up the difference by being sufficiently under the required average fleet emission standard to offset the deficit that they incurred in 2010.

S. Simpson: These reports that are talked about in section 3…. Again, is this information to be public information on these reports on the vehicle fleets — i.e., around average emissions, emissions for individual motor vehicles within the fleets, and also the other issues around credits or transfers that may happen within the model year reports?

I'll just tag this other question on. Would that also apply should any vehicles be caught up in the alternative fleet emission standards? Would they require reporting as well, and would that be public?

Hon. B. Penner: The short answer is yes. The longer answer is as follows. This is similar to the last bill that we discussed. Subsection 23(3), dealing with confidentiality provisions, states that the prohibition against disclosure does not apply to "(b) in relation to Part 2 [Vehicle Fleet Emissions Standards], (i) information respecting the matters referred to in section 3 (1) (a) and (b) [model year reports in relation to fleet emissions] and, if prescribed, information referred to in section 3 (1) (c)…."

Again, to state it in the positive sense, this means that the government does have authority to release the information related to fleet average emissions for different manufacturers, as well as specific emissions for different vehicle types. It's my expectation that the government will be looking forward to releasing that information.

S. Simpson: Accepting the minister's comments about the information that he anticipates the government would release, should a government decide not to release it, would it be FOIable information? If they're reports to government, would they be available and FOIable?

Hon. B. Penner: It's our understanding that the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act would apply. Whatever the test is under that legislation would have to be applied. I'm told that there's a three-part test. We can only think of two out of three of those tests: is it a trade secret? Was the information provided in confidence? Then there's apparently another test, which is escaping us.

However, I would suggest that the fact that the legislation specifically contemplates that that information can be disclosed and is not protected probably suggests that it would not necessarily be given in confidence.

S. Simpson: Just one question here. I assume that I know the answer, but I'll ask on the compliance reports in relation to standards. The minister has just said, based on the earlier section on confidentiality, that information about reports related to fleet emissions would be largely available and probably offered up. Can I assume that the compliance reports, in terms of how well those manufacturers or fleets have done in complying, would also be available in the same fashion?

S. Simpson: Zero-emission vehicles. We've had some discussion in the House, but we know we've had some small numbers of totally electric vehicles in the province, some small operators. Does the minister contemplate that there's anything else that would be a zero-emission vehicle, or is this looking to the future?

Hon. B. Penner: I would suspect that in the near term the most likely type of vehicle to qualify as a ZEV, or a zero-emission vehicle, would be some form of a battery-electric vehicle. I'm advised that under the California Air Resources Board's system, they would consider a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle to also qualify as a zero-emission vehicle.

However, if you're using the hydrogen in an internal combustion engine, which I understand Governor Schwarzenegger does with at least one of his Hummers, that does result in certain emissions, particularly some nitrous oxides. Under California Air Resources Board's standards, that qualifies as a partial zero-emission vehicle, as would a plug-in hybrid.

We're hoping to purchase a number of those kits for some of the existing hybrid vehicles in the B.C. government fleet to see how they work, but they still have an internal combustion engine and have gasoline, as the member knows, so they would also qualify as a partial zero-emission vehicle, not a full zero-emission vehicle. At this point I would think that the most likely full zero-emission vehicle to be contemplated would be a battery-electric vehicle and, hopefully someday, a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle.

S. Simpson: The minister mentioned partial zero-emission vehicles and talked about a plug-in hybrid. Would a more conventional hybrid that we see today, the Prius…? Would they qualify as a partial?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm not entirely sure, but I don't believe that the California Air Resources Board considers the off-the-shelf form of hybrid electric vehicles to be partial zero-emission vehicles. I stand to be corrected on that, but I don't believe the typical hybrid electric vehicle, of which there are about 565 now in the B.C. government fleet, is considered by CARB to be a partial zero-emission vehicle.

Apparently, if they are subsequently modified to be a plug-in hybrid — and there are apparently several different companies that manufacture and sell these kits, at least one of which is located in Canada — then you can qualify under CARB's rating system as a partial zero-emission vehicle.

S. Simpson: Section 6 talks about the vehicle fleet reports in relation to ZEV requirements, or zero-emission vehicles or partial emission vehicles. Under this legislation, if I'm Nissan or Toyota and I have vehicles within the fleet that are zero-emission vehicles, do they get calculated in with my more conventional fleet of vehicles to give me some idea of my emissions allowances? Or are they calculated in a separate category because of the nature of the vehicle?

Hon. B. Penner: If the member is asking if it would help bring down its overall fleet average if an auto manufacturer has a zero-emission vehicle or more than one zero-emission vehicle in its fleet, the answer is yes. It certainly would be my policy interest — and, I'm sure, also for other jurisdictions that are pursuing these types of initiatives — to try and encourage technological change on the part of manufacturers so that lower-emission vehicles become more common and more widely available.

S. Simpson: They might be categorized within that and included under section 6 to allow them to transfer credits there. In a question that's somewhat related, since we're not totally, 100 percent sure of the answer on this…. Then, I guess, that would hold true in more conventional terms for the more conventional hybrids that we see on the road here in Victoria or in Vancouver — that they're also included in.

If you've got a hybrid…. If you're Toyota and you're running two hybrids in your fleet and you incorporate those in, then it's good on you. It brings down your fleet emissions allowance. How does that relate when it brings down that emission allowance? I'm trying to get my head around this question to get it right. Do they then look at those vehicles in a somewhat distinct way?

I'm just trying to determine here how we set these allowances between the companies that have hybrids and the companies that don't, in terms of their credits and how much the hybrids count towards bringing those emissions down. I'm just trying to get my head around that.

Hon. B. Penner: At the risk of nitpicking, if I'm not mistaken, Toyota may have three hybrids already — the Prius, the Camry and the Highlander, I think — and possibly more that I'm not aware of. I believe that they've made a corporate commitment to offer, within the next eight to ten years, a hybrid variant for every single one of the vehicles that they sell. I stand to be corrected, but I think that's what I've been led to believe.

This will make it easier, I think, for them to comply, or for any other auto manufacturer to comply, if they have a fleet of vehicles that produces lower emissions than other vehicles of a similar type.

The short answer to the member's question is yes. To the extent that manufacturers have implemented technologies that help reduce fuel consumption and the emission of greenhouse gases from their vehicles, they will have an easier time meeting their overall reduction targets.

S. Simpson: Section 7 talks about: "Other manufacturers may report and generate credits." So I'm to understand by this that if I am a larger company that is operating and if maybe my credits are a little out of whack or I'm anticipating that for whatever reason, because of the vehicles I have on the road or have available in British Columbia…. So I then go out and look at a smaller company that maybe is doing some innovative things around low-emission vehicles or zero-emission vehicles.

Does this then say that I can do a business arrangement with that other manufacturer, that other company, to be able to incorporate them into my calculation? Is that what this says?

Hon. B. Penner: Yes, it's my understanding that manufacturers would be able to enter into business arrangements with each other.

In particular, in section 7 the thought here is that this could be an incentive for certain small manufacturers, not major enterprises but some innovative upstart companies, to develop zero-emission vehicles and generate an extra income stream by selling the credits to the larger manufacturers who may not have this technology or may not have been as advanced in its development. The policy consideration here is to try and provide an extra revenue stream or extra incentive for technological innovation on the part of small manufacturers.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that. Just to be clear, they would only be able to sell…. If you had a small electric vehicle company or something, a startup that was doing this, they would be able to sell credits to, say, a larger manufacturer only based on the number of vehicles that they had on the market or available for the market in British Columbia.

If they were an Alberta firm or a Washington State firm that was doing a business arrangement with somebody over British Columbia, would it only be for the amount of vehicles that they put in the B.C. market and actually had available for sale? If that's the case, then how do we determine that?

Hon. B. Penner: A manufacturer who would want to take advantage of this opportunity would have to generate and file a report under the provisions of section 6(1) of the legislation, and that would be submitted to the director that's identified in the legislation. That report would have to provide us with sufficient information that we felt comfortable that in fact they had delivered the stated number of zero-emission vehicles to British Columbia for use in British Columbia.

In addition, automobiles in British Columbia that are on the road have to be registered through ICBC. So there's another way we could get at some data if we had to or needed to, in terms of doing an audit or a compliance check to make sure that the vehicles were really here as reported. In some regards, that makes B.C. somewhat unique. There are some other provinces, too, that have a centralized insurance company, but it does make it easier in B.C. to run reports on the registration of certain types of vehicles.

For example, it's quicker for B.C. to find out how many hybrid electric vehicles are on the road in our province compared to, let's say, Ontario, because ICBC has a separate category for that in their computer software tracking system. I'm still trying to find out, for example, how many hybrids are on the road in Ontario. The best I get are estimates at this point, because they have different insurance companies that are insuring those vehicles. There isn't a single depository of information that you can go to, like we have here in British Columbia.

S. Simpson: Just one more question in relation to this. If I'm Jaguar…. I'm making a very upmarket vehicle, and I'm selling my Jaguars in British Columbia, and I want to take advantage of this. So I find this company that I do business with — a small, zero-emission electric car company or something like that. Is it the case that what I do is file a report? It's all on the up and up.

Say I have a hundred of these vehicles that are for sale in British Columbia through a business arrangement that I have with this company, this small operator, and I'm a big, elite car dealer. I've got a hundred vehicles for sale. Whether people buy them or not is a whole other matter. But they are here, they do exist, and they're for sale in British Columbia. Then I get to claim that fleet even if nobody actually buys one of these cars and puts it on the road?

Hon. B. Penner: As is the case with California's model, it's about delivery of the vehicle for sale in British Columbia. The manufacturer, I would think, would have some incentive to try and sell the vehicles because they're paying for them to be here.

The other thing is that at some point they'd have to make, if it were a Jaguar…. I think it is actually now owned by Ford, if I'm not mistaken. But if it was a manufacturer that wanted to take advantage of zero-emission credits from a smaller manufacturer, they'd have to decide whether it was cheaper for them to purchase those credits from the upstart company or to develop that technology in-house.

They may come to a business decision that in fact they'd be better off doing that in-house and generating those benefits in terms of reducing their overall fleet average rather than paying someone else to help them reduce their fleet average.

S. Simpson: I expect that that might be correct, and it becomes correct, I assume, if the market is big enough. I understand that us hooking up with California certainly helps that, but as the market gets bigger, the notion of developing your own technology becomes more appealing in that area.

Hon. Speaker, just in the interests of time, I think we could actually move on right through to section 17.

Hon. B. Penner: I move the amendment to section 14 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

Hon. B. Penner: This amendment is made to correct an inconsistency between this bill and Bills 16 and 18. This amendment will remove any uncertainty as to whether, and to what extent, the appeal procedures articulated in division 1 of part 8 of the Environmental Management Act apply to appeals under Bill 39.

S. Simpson: Hon. Chair, section 17 is "Continuing offences." This suggests that an offence that came under a previous section where penalties were put in place — and some of the penalties are quite significant…. If it "continues for more than one day, separate fines, each not exceeding the maximum fine for the offence, may be imposed for each day the offence continues."

Who makes the determination on whether there will be continued or escalating penalties?

Hon. B. Penner: As the member will note, section 17 references section 15, which sets out offences under the act. Whether or not a person or a company will be charged for continuing offences and then have separate fines would be a matter that would be determined by our enforcement personnel, likely in consultation with Crown counsel.

S. Simpson: "Other provisions relating to offences." It talks about time limits for laying out information on offences under the act and how that can be done. In addition to doing that, does that become public? Is there a public report made, or does the ministry make public any offences that were laid under this legislation? Would that be public information?

Hon. B. Penner: Section 20 refers to, again, offences that would be prosecuted in the long-form information sort of way, the traditional court prosecution. It would be my expectation that following a proceeding in court…. What happens in court is public.

In addition, the ministry publishes a quarterly compliance and enforcement summary of actions undertaken by the Ministry of Environment under various pieces of legislation which we're responsible for administering.

I would expect, and will actually endeavour to make sure, that this new piece of legislation would also be the type of thing that would be reported upon in the quarterly compliance and enforcement summary.

S. Simpson: Section 21 talks about director authority and the authority of the director to require a report to be audited in order to ensure that the accepted emission standards are being met and such. Who would perform that audit? Would that be an internal audit? Would it be an independent audit? Who would do that work?

Hon. B. Penner: I would expect that the audit would be conducted by someone considered by the director to be a qualified professional. Whether that's someone inside the ministry or a contracted third party may depend on the circumstances. It would have to be someone that the director felt comfortable was competent to do the work.

S. Simpson: As we've talked about in a number of other cases, an audit that was directed under this…. Would that be public information? Would that be FOIable information?

Hon. B. Penner: The Freedom of Information and Privacy Act, I'm advised, would apply.

S. Simpson: Section 25 deals with regulations in relation to manufacturers and model years, and subsection 25(c), around the development of regulations, talks about "exempting classes of manufacturers from the application of specified provisions of this Act." Could the minister confirm if that refers back to those small specialized manufacturers the minister referenced earlier in regard to zero-emission vehicles or others? Or does that involve something else, and if so, what?

Hon. B. Penner: I believe this section would cover the scenario that the member described earlier. I can be more specific about it. It's a small, upstart manufacturer producing zero-emission vehicles hoping to sell some credits to a larger manufacturer who maybe hasn't been as inclined or, for whatever reason, hasn't had the technological wherewithal to develop the certain type of zero-emission vehicle.

It would also, as you see in subsection 25(c), potentially allow the "exempting classes of manufacturers from the application of the specified provisions of this Act." This follows California's model, but — I'll repeat my comments here — I haven't taken and nor has the government taken a position on whether this would actually be utilized here in British Columbia. It may, but at this point I'd have to still be persuaded.

Hon. B. Penner: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Bill 39, Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Vehicle Emissions Standards) Act, reported complete with amendment.

Bill 39, Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Vehicle Emissions Standards) Act, read a third time and passed.

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

J. Brar: Yesterday I asked a question about the out-patient hospital construction. The minister in his response said the construction is set to start in the…. In addition, the minister said that the Fraser Health Authority is going to look into a couple of proposals. It's going through the bidding process, and once that's done, the construction will start.

My question to the minister is…. Since there has been delay and the people of Surrey want the construction to start as soon as possible, I would like to know what the outstanding items are before the construction can start. There must be some sort of planning as to things to do. Can the minister elaborate that these are the things to do before the construction starts.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's question yesterday with respect to Surrey Memorial Hospital…. He referenced the press release and the announcement from the B.C. Liberal government, so I'm fortunate here today to have press releases, one from May 10, 2005, which was from the B.C. Liberals. I also have — I'm sure this will be a walk down memory lane for the member — a May 13, 2005, press release from the Leader of the Opposition with respect to their vision for Surrey Memorial Hospital.

If the member doesn't have a copy of the May 10, 2005, press release, I'm glad to provide that to him. It says, in part, that we will be acting on the findings this year. "The money will be there in our budgets, and shovels will be in the ground by 2008." It goes on to say: "I guarantee all Surrey residents that they will see significant and sweeping improvements in their acute care access, with construction underway by 2008." That is exactly what is going to happen. Construction will get underway in 2008.

As I explained to the member yesterday, we have gone through a request for qualifications. That's been completed. Fraser Health has almost completed the analysis of the request for proposals. That is part of the normal process of consideration of these projects and the progress of these projects.

Once the negotiations with the preferred proponent from the RFP are completed — and we expect that will be end of May, early June — then construction will start. We promised 2008, and that's what we will get in 2008.

So to compare, I'll go to the May 13, 2005, press release from the Leader of the Opposition. It's entitled "Leader of Opposition" — it has her name, but I won't use that because we're in a parliamentary situation — "to Open 40 Acute Care Beds in Surrey and Delta." It says: "'The NDP will immediately upgrade to full acute care status 20 beds in Delta Hospital and 20 beds in the Surrey Memorial Hospital,' NDP leader" — and omit the name — "said today."

I find it an interesting comparison. We are investing over $200 million at Surrey — in fact, far more than that. This is a phased project that will see the redevelopment of virtually all of Surrey Memorial Hospital. It's a huge project, one of the biggest ever in this province. Comparatively, we have 20 beds at Surrey Memorial Hospital from the NDP. So if the member is trying to concoct an argument here that's aimed at embarrassing the government, then he'll want to think twice about that.

J. Brar: Thanks for the whole history of the issue, but I would like to probably correct the history here, Minister.

This government has gone to Surrey, including the minister himself and the Premier — the minister, again, more than five times in Surrey — and made the same announcement and the same announcement again and again to the people of Surrey, saying that as far as the out-patient hospital is concerned….

The report was there by the Fraser Health Authority. Subsequently the minister went to Surrey and made the announcement that the construction will start in '07. I challenge the minister on that one. I will pull out the press release and show the minister that. Subsequently that was delayed by one year, and the minister is on the record as saying that the delay was only for three months.

The minister is here talking about the NDP, but one of the promises that the minister made was that they were going to add 62 acute care beds to the Surrey Memorial Hospital by the end of November '07. That has not been done. So you had the announcement….

You have the announcement and announcements after announcements, but in fact nothing will be completed before the end of second term. That's what the minister gave to the people of Surrey.

In other words, this minister has not given even one two-by-four to the people of Surrey during the eight years, which will be a complete eight years….

J. Brar: Yes, the construction will start now, because we're getting into the election year.

I just want to conclude. Again, to be very clear about that, the minister said the process is going through the request for proposal.

J. Brar: I understand that. I understand the negotiation, but that's the only thing the minister mentioned.

Is there any other thing? Is there any other item that needs to be completed before the construction starts? That's my question, if the minister can specifically answer that.

Hon. G. Abbott: The approval process here is absolutely the normal process that projects go through, and the money is in the budget for this. We've gone through RFQ and RFP evaluation. The next step, after awarding the contract, is for construction to begin.

I know that this member and a couple of the other Surrey members have been trying desperately, since we announced this project, to identify the cloud around the silver lining here. It's always good to hear from members whose cup will always be half empty. It is always good to hear that half-empty perspective on the world.

I buy the member a new cherry-red Jaguar, and I deliver it to his driveway. I turn the keys over to him, and I say, "This is yours for free," and he says: "Well, I expected that Jaguar yesterday. What the heck's with this?" That's exactly what is being said.

If the member wants to have a duelling press release battle, we can do that. But the fact of the matter — and I guess this is essentially what troubles the member — is that our government made a commitment. We're following through on that commitment. His opposition leader didn't make a commitment — except for 20 beds, apparently, at Surrey Memorial Hospital. Of course, they haven't followed through on that. They may have got those 20 beds if they got into government, but that is a very, very small fraction of what our government has committed to for Surrey.

Again, I know that the member wants to disparage, in any way he can, what's being done, but what's being done is first-rate work. I know there's a little bit of envy, I'm sure, in terms of the commitments that were made respectively by the opposition versus what were made by the government. I'm not going to apologize for that. We're doing what we said we were going to do, and it's being done in a most professional and thorough manner.

The Chair: May I remind all members of the House to respect the person who has the floor so that we can hear the questions and hear the answers.

J. Brar: I would like to put on the record, and the minister knows that very well, that the construction of the new hospital was to start in '07 but had been delayed to '08. The completion date was '09 and is now delayed to 2010, which is after the next election. That's a fact. That's not my fact; it's the government's fact. We have documents to prove that.

I would like to move on to the second question. If we look at the health care in Surrey, we have a crisis in the ER, and the minister is very well aware about that. We have code orange and many other codes on a regular basis, and that's the area people of Surrey have been asking this government to improve for the last seven years. Now it's almost seven years — the end of the second term — and nothing happened.

Now, even the recommendation for that — and subsequently, the announcement by this minister and the Premier — was to start the construction for the ER in 2008, but that has also been delayed to 2009. So I would like to ask the minister again as to in what month, if the minister can tell us, the construction of the new ER is going to start.

Hon. G. Abbott: One of the things we have committed to as part of the Surrey Memorial Hospital redevelopment is not only the huge out-patient hospital that is going to be under construction later in 2008, but we have also committed to a tripling of the emergency department.

We also…. The member mentioned it, and he claimed that it was not being done. There was also part of the of the project to renovate and reclaim space at Surrey Memorial Hospital to create 12 additional renal stations and 64 additional acute care beds, including three ICU beds; and redesign and renovate the lab and pharmacy to provide clinical support for added bed capacity. Completion of acute care and ICU beds is targeted for September of 2008. Renal beds, lab and pharmacy are scheduled to complete by March 2009.

Now, I know the member says: "Tell me the month; tell me the month." Well, it's May. I guess that's the month it is right now. The member says, as if there is some magic attached to it, that we shouldn't undertake this $300 million project if it is going to be completed a month later than was originally hypothesized in the first press release. Well, that's the most absurd argument that I have ever heard.

There are half-empty lines, and then there are half-empty lines. This, I think, strikes a new low, where the member is saying: "Oh, maybe we shouldn't proceed with that $300 million project. It might be a month late." Well, you know, I will gladly leave it to the benign judgment of the electors of Surrey.

When we get out to May 2009, this member can get up and say, "I promised 20 acute care beds," and we'll get up and say: "We're delivering on our promises for a tripling of the emergency department, more acute care beds, more renal stations, an out-patient hospital and over a thousand residential care and assisted living units for Fraser Health.

I'm going to be delighted to stand on that promise. I'll be standing in Shuswap, so it won't mean much to my electors, but I can tell you, for the guys who are running in Surrey, that they're going to be real proud of it.

J. Brar: It's very interesting to hear that. We had a meeting with the Fraser Health Authority, with the new CEO, probably a month ago. We had a debate and that discussion, and the staff told us very clearly that the delay is for one year. It's very shocking. The minister is still saying it is for one month.

The Liberal member from Surrey has said to the media, as well, that this is for one year. I don't know who to believe, whether the minister is right or the Fraser Health is right or the member is right. Who's right?

My question to the minister, if the minister can tell us…. The ER is an area where we have health care crises in Surrey. Every day people go through long waits and long pain, and people want something to happen soon. This government has been talking about improving the ER now for seven long years. Nothing happened. Yes, an announcement has been made by the minister, by the Premier, by the minister again, by the Premier again.

Yes, I get it. Those things happen. But nothing actually was done, and nothing has been done until today. So my question is very simple: can the minister tell the people of Surrey when the construction for the new hospital and the ER will be completed? Just tell us the date, if the minister can tell us. It has been seven years now. You've had a lot of time to plan for that.

Hon. G. Abbott: It is always interesting to hear this argument from this member: "Oh, I'll be part of a party and I'll be part of a former government that did nothing for Surrey Memorial Hospital for ten years. Then I'll say, when I'm in opposition, that the government has done nothing." Well, that's wrong.

This B.C. Liberal government has undertaken a commitment, and we're fulfilling that commitment. We have money in the budget. We have gone to RFQ. We've gone to RFP. The analysis is almost completed. We're going to be starting shortly on construction. As we move forward, we can give the member more and more refined time lines around the project.

The member says, "Oh, you can't tell me what month it is," as if somehow this whole project was diminished — that the entire value of the project was disparaged, that it disappeared — because somehow it might be one month or it might be another month.

The fact of the matter is the construction schedule may move it ahead; the construction schedule may move it back. What's the member saying? Is he saying that we should abandon this project because it might be a little further ahead or a little further back? Is he saying that? Is he saying that the project is worthless because it might be moved a little ahead or a little back?

Again, this is the weakest argument that I have ever heard. This is the most trifling, concocted argument around a facility that I have ever heard. You know, I guess when you get down to the point where the other guys are doing the job, they're delivering on their promises and you've got nothing but air to put out there yourselves, you go for what you can. Well, it's a terribly weak argument, but that's not going to discourage us from proceeding with this project appropriately and responsibly.

J. Brar: You know, the minister is asking me a question about what I will do. What I want…. What the people of Surrey wanted was to start the construction two years ago. That's what I want, and that's what we have said time and again. Now, my question to the minister. The minister can stand up and play word games as big as the minister wants, talking about Jaguars. You didn't give us even a cycle until today — a bicycle. To the people of Surrey, you're talking about Jaguars — right?

J. Brar: An announcement was made almost three years ago by the B.C. Liberal government, under pressure at that time. A person had died at Surrey Memorial because there was no bed. To address the situation at that time, the announcement was made by

this government that $28 million would be spent immediately to improve the situation.

My understanding is that that $28 million is part of building the new hospital or the expansion of the ER. I would like to ask the minister where that $28 million is sitting. Has that been spent? Or is that still part of this whole big project, which we don't know when it's going to start?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, the member has said on a number of occasions: "You made an announcement two years ago. Why isn't the hospital completed?" Well, I think that reflects pretty much a complete lack of understanding about how Treasury Board processes work and also pretty much a complete misunderstanding of how construction projects work as well, particularly construction projects of this magnitude.

One doesn't announce a project one day and then have it materialize the next day when it is of this magnitude. Clearly, that doesn't happen, and hopefully, that's not an indication of how the member would manage public funds, should he ever have the opportunity in government.

Clearly, there is a lot of planning that needs to be done. That has been done by the Fraser Health Authority. The planning leads to a determination of what is needed, and that has happened. That then leads to the requests for qualifications to ensure that you have appropriate, qualified people bidding for the work. A request for proposals follows. The determination of the preferred proponent from those who submitted is determined. Negotiations occur, which we are currently in the latter stages of, I understand, at Surrey Memorial. The project will proceed.

Again, we made that announcement back in May. It is interesting that we have these duelling press releases, one from the B.C. Liberals on May 10 and another from the B.C. New Democrats on the 13th, with one calling for a very ambitious hospital project and the other calling for 20 additional acute care beds. We made our commitment, and we're fulfilling our commitment. I don't know what more can be said about that.

We have already undertaken important improvements at Surrey Memorial Hospital in the form of the fast-track unit in the emergency department. We know that Surrey Memorial Hospital emergency department is undersized. That's why we have committed dollars to expand that emergency department, to triple it, and that will happen too. It has to happen. That facility is undersized for the volume, and I think that Surrey Memorial is the busiest emergency department in the entire province of British Columbia.

If the member wants proof of our government delivering, he should take a drive down Highway 1 out to Abbotsford. As he heads east towards Shuswap to vacation, he will see on his left a very, very imposing structure that is the $355 million Abbotsford regional hospital and cancer centre. The member will be appreciative that this was a project that was discussed for some ten years, during his former government's days in power. It never happened. That project never happened, but it is there on the ground today. It is a beautiful facility and one that all British Columbians, even New Democrats, can be proud of.

D. Routley: I'd like to ask the minister some questions about Lyme disease, a tick-borne infectious disease or vector-borne zoonosis. The minister is familiar with the constituent I represent. Her name is Mary McQuay. Her parents are very concerned about her ongoing and deteriorating condition due to her contracting Lyme disease. She has had several diagnoses of this but has been unable to get the treatment she needs.

It has become clear to me, and to other members of the opposition who have other constituents suffering similarly, that the system refuses to acknowledge the presence of Lyme disease in B.C. and its prevalence, despite several reports that indeed show that Lyme disease is prevalent in B.C. In fact, the B.C. Centre for Disease Control did a report in 2007, a Lyme disease review, which pointed to this fact. Their own surveillance reports show that Tofino, Duncan and many other cities are hot spots for Lyme. Yet when people present with symptoms, they are met with a stone wall.

The minister knows of this case. The case has become critical, as the patient is now in a very grave state and has been dismissed because "she's doing much better." But she is having seizures, cannot walk, cannot talk, can barely breathe and is in terrible, terrible shape. The minister has promised help, but it has not been realized. Will the minister offer a better solution at this point now?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question, and I thank the member for taking the opportunity a few weeks ago to come to my office and have a discussion around his constituent and the concern that, obviously, the constituent has been affected by Lyme disease.

I find the issue of Lyme disease a very interesting and challenging one, because there is a very vigorous debate within the medical community around both what the appropriate testing regime is for Lyme disease and what the appropriate medical practice is in respect of Lyme disease.

Now, I think the way that we concluded the discussion — the member and I — was that I'd be glad to try to arrange an opportunity for further testing for his constituent. The challenge here is that there is a regime of testing which has been adopted by the B.C. Centre for Disease Control. I believe that the vast majority of physicians in the province subscribe to that regime of testing that has been developed by the B.C. Centre for Disease Control. I have the details of that here, but I'll hold off on that. I'm glad to, if the members would find it useful.

BCCDC and the great preponderance of medical practitioners in the province have a particular view around how to test for Lyme disease and what the appropriate steps are to be taken around the medical practice in respect of it. So that debate has been going on for some time.

Dr. Murakami, who is often the spokesman and proponent around those who believe that Lyme disease is far more prevalent in the province, has a view. I understand that there are also labs in the United States that have a testing regime that is significantly different than the testing regime at B.C. Centre for Disease Control. It is the view of the B.C. Centre for Disease Control, in fact, that the testing regime that is undertaken by some American labs produces way more false positives than is appropriate. As a consequence, they believe and believe firmly at the B.C. Centre for Disease Control that the multilevel testing they do around Lyme disease is the right approach.

That having been said, that's a very interesting debate within the medical community for me to observe and for the member to observe. The question then is: what do we do about the member's constituent who has medical issues? How do we get to the bottom of whether her medical issues are driven by the actual presence of Lyme disease, which I gather an American lab has concluded, or whether she has another condition that we should be assisting the member and his constituent in getting to the bottom of so that appropriate medical treatment can occur?

I remain committed, as I was that day, to trying to find some way to get the right testing so that the appropriate course of treatment can be undertaken, but we do have this challenge. I mean, there are not many areas of medical policy where we have such a sharp differentiation of views among some physicians, the preponderance of physicians, and the B.C. Centre for Disease Control. I'm not sure how to resolve that difference, but I was sincere when I said that I want to try to find some way to get the member's constituent the appropriate testing and the appropriate treatment.

D. Routley: It is a lot more than an interesting debate in the medical field. It is critical for this constituent, and this is just the most critical of the constituents who I represent who do suffer with Lyme symptoms. It's just that she happens to be very close to death. That is the opinion of her parents, and they're panicking at this point. There are many others, including a seven-year-old girl who received initial treatment, but the treatment has not been continued.

It is my understanding that the tests that the B.C. Centre for Disease Control uses produce at least a 50 percent false negative. But in any case, should the tests not be merely confirmatory? Of course, by the time the tests are able to be confirmed, the patient has taken on all sorts of co-infections that become that much more difficult to treat.

If the minister were able to step up and say that we should be treating Lyme patients and eliminating Lyme as a potential because….The initial treatment, if it's early, will not — I'm not any expert, but this is what I have been told — pose a threat to the patient if it's one of the other conditions that might typically offer the same symptoms. So the tests, I think, should be confirmatory, and the initial treatment would eliminate Lyme as the cause or eliminate Lyme if it is the cause. Instead, people are left to suffer for months and months or years and years, and they develop these co-infections which become even more difficult than the treatment for the Lyme.

Now this family has had to travel to Seattle on their own dime and see specialists there. They've now been accepted to a clinic in Redwood, California, but they can't travel by car because the patient is so ill. Most commercial airlines will not accept her because of her condition. They're looking for the minister to offer a flight to that centre for treatment and for him to ensure that this treatment occurs, because there were commitments made.

There were commitments made in the meeting I had with the minister, where the minister assured me that a Lyme-literate specialist could be arranged to see this woman, and that did not happen. So I wonder if the minister could address those issues.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member wants to discuss this within the bounds of a parliamentary setting, so we'll do that.

My understanding, based on the information I have, is that the patient was admitted to Cowichan District Hospital on April 7, 2008. A series of blood tests were conducted — to date, normal findings from those — and a number of consults in respect of the patient's conditions. Other physicians have been working on this issue.

Again, I find it difficult to say, as I'm neither a physician nor an epidemiologist. I am not going to submit my political judgment for the medical judgment of practitioners who are trained in this area. I did mention a little bit about the testing, and I guess, given the member's interest, I'll add a little bit more to the record.

According to the information I have, Lyme disease should be diagnosed through a clinical evaluation of the patient's symptoms and risk of exposure to infected ticks. A blood test may also be administered, supported by laboratory testing by the B.C. Centre for Disease Control, but this should not be interpreted in the absence of a clinical diagnosis.

The B.C. Centre for Disease Control laboratory services recommends a two-tiered approach to Lyme disease testing. First, blood samples are screened with a sensitive enzyme test, and then positive or suspicious results must be confirmed with a highly specific western blot test before Lyme disease is positively identified.

This approach is also recommended by the Association of State and Territorial Public Health Laboratory Directors and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The B.C. Centre for Disease Control cautions against the use of invalidated tests for Lyme disease or interpreting results without appropriate guidelines, as this can lead to a high number of false-positive tests. For example, some private labs in the U.S. use a different standard of interpretation and thus return a false-positive result on almost every test. That's an important note and I guess a final note on this.

Again, I'm not trying in any way to diminish this patient's issues. I'm trying to report to the member that

this is a complex issue. At some point, hopefully, the patient and her family can find a physician that they have confidence in, they can find a testing regime that is appropriate, and a proper diagnosis is made of the patient. As the Centre for Disease Control cautions: "Inappropriate antibiotic therapy for misdiagnosed Lyme disease can and has killed patients in the prime of their lives."

One has to be very careful. Medicine, obviously, is science- and evidence-based, but it is not always a perfect science. The practitioners, the physicians, those who administer laboratory tests and those who interpret laboratory tests are all part of a system whereby the diagnosis is based on evidence and science, and it is often the best that is possible in a world that sometimes lacks complete certainty.

One has to be careful about moving forward here, and one should move forward with the best advice possible. I think the B.C. Centre for Disease Control has, from our governmental perspective, the scientific basis, the evidence basis and the expertise to provide that advice.

D. Routley: Obviously, caution and prudence are called for whenever these situations present themselves to the people who would be qualified to make those judgments, but it should be more certain than just saying, "Hopefully, they can find specialists. Hopefully, they can find someone who will address those issues," when in fact the minister is committed to helping that happen and ensuring that that does happen.

Although the minister has pointed out accurately that there should be prudence, there should also be a critical haste, because there are so many people who are at death's doorstep because of these symptoms. If the minister wants to put things in context, he can look south of the border and towards eastern provinces that do recognize Lyme disease more readily, where there are thousands of percent more recognized cases just across borders.

It's kind of like 15-passenger vans. There are a lot of Canadian jurisdictions that don't recognize their dangers, but physics don't change at the borders, and ticks don't need passports. So wherever you have animals that have Lyme disease, you will have humans that have Lyme disease. There is Lyme disease in animals in B.C.

If the minister goes into any veterinarian's office, he will see pamphlets on Lyme disease. Pets are treated as a matter of course when they present with symptoms, and they are cured. But we are not offering this to the citizens of British Columbia.

In the meeting I had with the minister, he explained the circumspection he holds for the American testing by pointing out that they were private labs and had a private motive, which seems very largely ironic coming from a government that has taken the steps it has in terms of privatization of the system. If the motives are an excuse that one might hide behind in interpreting test results, then we should address some other issues in this House as well.

I think that the minister made commitments to this family. They are desperate. There is no more time left. They are looking for someone who will fly their daughter to California. I am asking anyone I know with connections to anyone who might have that power available to them. So I'm asking the minister, because the minister has that power, if he will ensure that that patient gets the treatment she needs, either here in B.C. or in Redwood, California, where she has been accepted by a Lyme specialist.

Hon. G. Abbott: I wonder if I might ask the member: what is the body of evidence which would lead us to conclude that Redwood, California, is the place for her to go?

D. Routley: The clinic is run by the foremost private lab that tests for Lyme in the United States. I can get the minister all of the information he might require.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, the member said a number of things in his response, which I hope were a product of concern and frustration. But I've got to say to the member that no one in British Columbia is saying that Lyme disease does not exist in our jurisdiction. No one has ever said that. The issue is the incidence and prevalence of Lyme disease in the province. It is around the issue of incidence and prevalence that the debate that I talked about earlier exists.

I think the member can disagree and conclude that California is the place to go. I think we have been trying to assist the member and the patient and the family in this. The process here is to make a request to the attending physician that the patient should see an infectious disease physician.

We understand that there are specialists in infectious disease in both Victoria and Nanaimo. The member may advise that all of those have been exhausted, but again, at some point we need to display, I guess, some faith and trust in the learned physicians we have who are experts in this area.

My view is that the best course for the patient is to try to get the best advice from an infectious disease specialist from either Victoria or Nanaimo. We're glad to assist in trying to expedite that, as I said to the member at the time.

The member can send along the information he has on the Redwood facility. There are provisions in the Medical Services Plan for out-of-country travel to access specialists that are not otherwise available in British Columbia. Those need to be approved prior to the patient departing, but that is an option that's available.

A. Dix: Yesterday after the estimates I got an e-mail from someone who claimed that they didn't think the minister ever answered any questions. I have to say to the minister that the person e-mailing was a supporter of mine, so she thought the questions were excellent and the answers weren't as good, which is fair enough. To be evidence-based, we have to put this out.

I have to say that I was impressed today, because we got a very clear answer today. The minister has been saying for weeks that he's not sure whether he's running again or not running again. Earlier today, in answer, he got into it with the member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge, and he said clearly: "When I'm a candidate in Shuswap, I may not be campaigning on the Surrey issues." So for all those people in Shuswap who were worried, that may mean it's out now.

I used to advise politicians. I've retired from that learned profession. I say to the minister that I wouldn't have chosen the Douglas Fir Room to announce that, but there you go. But it's fascinating.

I'll just say in advance that he knows that the member for Vancouver-Kensington will start questioning him about mental health at about 4:15. We may not get to the e-health questions today. What I wanted to do is share with the minister some of the questions — they will have seen them before — on e-health. Some of the staff may be able to answer in writing in advance of our debating it next Wednesday, which I think would be the next opportunity for that.

I want to ask the minister about the Pharmacare program. I think that's the schedule, anyway. The ministry's service plan and the government's budget indicate that the restated estimates for 2007-2008 were $1,018,385,000 for the Pharmacare program and that the estimates for 2008-2009 are $1,016,170,000, which would be a cut in the program.

I'm looking at the material assumptions elsewhere in the budget, which is page 195 of the Budget and Fiscal Plan. What those material assumptions say…. They take up some of the same numbers. They say $1.018 billion. Then they go to 2008-2009 budget estimate — $1.055 billion. So the material assumption is a 3.7 percent increase in costs, which is actually a reduction in the rate of increase of cost.

I want to ask the minister: are we to understand from that that the government is taking measures to cut roughly $40 million out of what they expect the costs would be for the Pharmacare program in 2008-2009? If that's the case, does he have some detail about what it would be that would have that $40 million? I understand that it's not actually $40 million, but against the material assumptions.

Maybe the minister can take me through that and explain where he finds the $40 million.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member has asked a short question but a relatively complex one.

The actual projected budget for '07-08 — the fiscal year has ended, but the final numbers are not available yet. We believe that the actual will be close to $952 million, which is $70 million less than was budgeted. The projected for '08-09 is $1.016 billion, though we have room above the actual for '07-08 up to what we project for '08-09.

In terms of what we anticipate to be pressures and so on in the system…. We are anticipating demand pressures, so that would reflect population growth, the aging demographic, utilization rates and things like prevalence of chronic diseases. The estimate for that portion of the budget is 3.5 percent.

For non-wage inflation, which provides for increased drug costs at 3.2 percent, our aim is to capture through management strategies — that is, competitive procurement and other strategies — savings of approximately $70 million, or around 6.9 percent of budget.

As the member probably knows, what we pay for a pharmaceutical, or pharmaceuticals in the aggregate, is a product of the cost of the pharmaceutical times the volume. There are efforts underway to try to contain those costs.

The Pharmacare budget has been growing quite rapidly over time. We've tried to curtail that recently, and the numbers have come down, but it has been quite common to see over the last decade or two double-digit increases in the pharmaceutical budget. I think that even since 2001 there's been some quite dramatic increase, like 60 percent, over that period.

We're enjoying currently some opportunity to improve our pricing in some areas. We also have, we hope, over the next couple of years some major pharmaceuticals coming off patent. That should assist.

As the member probably knows from the Pharmaceutical Task Force report that was issued today, we will be doing work with the Pharmacy Association and others across Canada to try to address the issue of rebates to pharmacies, a problem that was identified in the federal report on pharmaceutical pricing, a federal report which indicated that Canadians were paying more for generic pharmaceuticals than they should, relative to jurisdictions elsewhere in the world.

I don't want to diminish the complexity of what we're doing. There are lots of pieces to this. I know that we have some time to explore that, so perhaps that will do as an introductory answer.

A. Dix: This is no doubt a failing on my part, but…. The third quarterly said that the expenditure on Pharmacare was $764 million for the first three quarters, which is roughly $250 million a quarter, which would have been consistent with the estimates budget of the ministry.

Is the minister saying that the ministry made up $70 million in savings in one quarter? Is that what I'm to understand, if they're $70 million under?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm advised that that $70 million was made up over the course of the year, that incrementally there were some savings made.

A. Dix: Excepting…. It's an important question. I mean, $70 million is a lot of money even in the Ministry of Health, I'd say. So it was made up over the course of the year. But it would appear from the third quarterly — because the third quarterly was $764 million for

three quarters, and that's roughly $254 million a quarter — that if it added up to $900-odd million, the bulk of that…. The $12 million would have been the first three quarters, and the remaining $58 million would have been the last quarter.

What I wanted to ask is: what does the ministry think is going on? Because this is, in some ways, one of the places in the Ministry of Health budget where there's the most concern every year.

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the question is — and it's a good question — that projections are made each quarter. As we move further and further into the fiscal year, the certainty of whether those projections are correct…. Refinements are made around those projections, obviously, as we have the real-world experience of utilization rates compared to what actually occurred.

A. Dix: I guess a follow-up question is…. Okay, we're $70 million less than we said, which is pretty significant. If you look at the budget, it's pretty significant, because that $1.016 billion means something different than it does if you had spent $1.018 billion last year — right? Where was the $70 million saved? Was it saved on utilization? This would be interesting. Or was it saved on cost-control measures?

Hon. G. Abbott: The $70 million that was gained over the course of the year…. The volume savings were based on conservative estimates — that is, expansive estimates — of what the volumes would be. The volumes came in a little less than were expected. So about 80 percent of that $70 million, we'd reckon, we could attribute to lesser volumes than we had conservatively estimated, and about 20 percent, we reckon, would be better value on procurement.

A. Dix: So if we were to restate the budget now, essentially it would be in the $964 million or $970 million range for last year. Therefore, if you were looking at the rise to the estimated $1.016 billion, that would be, roughly, your 3.5 percent or 4 percent difference. Okay.

I wanted to ask the minister about the federal decision recently and the submission date. I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that the minister made a submission with respect to changes to drug patent laws that were made or that are proposed. But there was a deadline of eight days ago for comments in terms of changes to…. They're effectively extensions for the patents of various drugs. Those include, as I understand, Lipitor, which is not a small single item. It's $1.1 billion. That savings would have been presumably realized this year.

I wonder if the minister has written and whether he'd be prepared in the House to table the letter he shared with the ministry and whether he'd tell us what he thinks the cost implications of that federal decision are — one for consumers and the other for the provincial treasury.

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer is yes. I did write to the federal Minister of Health, Tony Clement. What I requested in that letter was an extension to the deadline for submissions that they had put out there.

We have some analytical work underway in the ministry with respect to what the impact of the patent extension might be to the province of British Columbia. We wanted additional time to complete that analytical work so that we could make a submission, one way or the other, with respect to whether this was a good idea or a bad idea. I'm advised that the request went from the federal minister's office to the industry minister's office and that the request was not granted for an extension. We are attempting, nevertheless, to understand what the impact of that extension might be.

A. Dix: Is it fair to say…? I mean, it seems pretty plain — to me, anyway — but I know these things aren't simple. If one were estimating Pharmacare costs…. You're talking about a drug, in the case of Lipitor, that in B.C., I understand, is a market that's certainly over $100 million, and maybe more than that. That would be just that drug, on the bottom line.

I'm just curious to know if the minister has, or maybe he can share with us, the drugs affected by this federal drug patent change, which I presume was lobbied for by a member of the minister's own Pharmaceutical Task Force. Maybe he can talk to Mr. Williams about what the impact might be on the provincial treasury. It seems to me it's pretty dramatic.

I think it's fair to say…. This isn't criticism of the minister. It's pretty irresponsible of the federal government to do what they seem to have done, which is to make a major change that will affect the budget of the Pharmacare program in every province in Canada — which is what they did here — and give 15 days' notice and not give the province an opportunity to respond.

Is the minister actually saying that the federal government engaged in this practice without having contacted any provincial government or warned them about the change?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think it would be fair to say that we share the concern around the process here. I'm advised that the province of British Columbia was given 15 days' notice of these changes. I don't believe that's sufficient or appropriate, and we're very concerned about that. That, among other reasons, is why we requested the extension that we did.

In terms of what this means, I'll give the member the best answer I can here at this point, and he may want to pursue it a little bit more. The change is not as simple as a two-year extension of patent. That's not the way this works. This is a regulatory change. The number of drugs that will be affected by this change, I gather, is largely determined by what happened with the patent pre-2006. So there's a level of complexity around here.

For example, the Lipitor example. Apparently, Lipitor will not be affected by this. Lipitor will continue to go off patent as expected, but other drugs…. We don't know the number of drugs that will be affected.

Again, it's unfortunate that we didn't get the opportunity to do that detailed analysis before this change was made. One can probably predict that this will not be a happy eventuality for budgeting, but we don't even know enough at this point, given the short notice, to really put a number around this or to even hypothesize on the number of drugs that will be affected.

A. Dix: In his understanding of the changes, can the minister or the ministry provide to us — and I appreciate not necessarily right now — the list of drugs that they understand is being affected? The fact that even that question is unclear, I think, probably amplifies the really irresponsible nature of what the federal government did here. It would be interesting to know what that list of drugs was and, if it's possible — I presume this is possible through the Pharmacare system — what the approximate cost of those drugs is in a given year to the province of British Columbia, because it's obviously key to budgeting.

I have to say…. I mean, you look at the management of the Pharmacare program. The extension of drug patent protection by the Mulroney government, the further extension by the Martin government and the further extension by the Harper government — whatever else one can say about the research jobs that may or may not have been created — has had a profound effect on Pharmacare programs. I wonder if the minister would be able to get that information for us or whether that is even possible at the moment.

Hon. G. Abbott: It is not possible at the moment. I don't think we'll have difficulty sharing it with anyone once the information is available. The analysis is in early stages. We just don't have anything definitive at this point to share, but when that definitive work is done, we wouldn't have a reluctance to share.

A. Dix: The minister referred to the report of the Pharmaceutical Task Force which was released today by the ministry. I want to ask the minister, first of all, about the composition of the task force. I think most people would say that it's unusual that the chief lobbyist for one part of the pharmaceutical industry was included; that a whole bunch of other people, including other parts of the industry, I guess you could argue, were excluded; and that in fact the task force had a very different makeup on the issue of conflict of interest, shall we say, than the therapeutics initiative that it proposes to replace.

I wanted to ask the minister why the position was taken to make the task force such an industry-dominated thing. When I saw the list of task force recipients, I said to myself and to the media, I think, that they're going to get rid of the therapeutics initiative, because this is a list of people that don't like the therapeutics initiative — that never liked the therapeutics initiative. The representatives of pharmaceutical companies have consistently for years attacked the evidence-based approach of the therapeutics initiative, which is known for, amongst other things, its very strict rules around conflict of interest — rules that will be weakened if this report is implemented.

So I want to ask the minister, and we'll have a chance to talk about some other aspects of it as well, why he chose this composition of a panel. If you're going to open it up wide, and you're going to say, "Well, we want industry on the panel," why just Mr. Williams's group?

Hon. G. Abbott: I would disagree fundamentally with the member's assertion that this was an industry-dominated task force. It clearly was not. The object of the task force and of the composition of the task force was to get a range of perspectives around the table. Legitimately, that range of perspectives would include industry, but by no means was this committee in any way dominated by industry.

For example, it is, I think, useful to note that the chair was Don Avison, who is the widely respected former Deputy Minister of Advanced Education and former Deputy Minister of Health, now the president of the University Presidents Council. I'm sure the member would agree with me that Dr. Avison is just a widely respected individual in this province.

I suspect that the member would share my assessment that George Morfitt, the vice-chair, the former Auditor General of British Columbia, brings a huge, huge range of experience and expertise to the table — certainly a professional, non-biased view. I hope the member would agree with me that George Morfitt and Don Avison were excellent choices for this task force.

I should also point out to the member that, additionally, we had two members of the committee who are prominent executive directors in the ministry — Gordon Cross, who has done just a terrific job in the ministry as executive director for regional grants and decision support with the finance and corporate services division, and Paul Gudaitis, who has been executive director for the National Pharmaceutical Strategy Secretariat. Both of those are members of the Ministry of Health. They took, I think, a perspective broader than the Ministry of Health's to the table, but certainly they're both excellent, competent and well-qualified members of the task force as well.

David Hall is, arguably, a representative of pharmaceutical business as chief compliance officer and senior vice-president of community relations with Angiotech Pharmaceuticals. It's arguable that he, along with Russell Williams, who's president of Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies — they were members — are two, certainly, that were business.

Sue Paish is the chief executive officer of Pharmasave Drugs (National) Ltd. Sue Paish, QC, is very well respected in this province and brings the pharmacy perspective to the task force. I think that's a positive thing, but it's a much different thing than what might be argued were the interests of the larger pharmaceutical firms in this province.

Dr. Mark Schonfeld, chief executive director of the B.C. Medical Association, is, I'm sure again, a

widely respected individual who brought a world of knowledge both from a medical perspective and a pharmaceutical perspective to the table. Dr. Robert Sindelar, a professor and dean of the University of B.C. faculty of pharmaceutical sciences, again, is widely, widely respected in this province and brings an important perspective to the table.

To me, that's nine members of that committee, and I think it was a very well structured committee. It brought a range of perspectives and expertise, and that is exactly what we wanted to do — ensure that we had some dynamics on the committee. It ensured that if the committee could move together to a consensus, it would be an important consensus in that it would be a reconciliation of a number of perspectives.

I am enormously appreciative of the work that the Pharmaceutical Task Force has undertaken. I am very respectful and supportive of the recommendations that they have made. I understand it was a very interesting process to be a part of. I wasn't a part of it, but as you can imagine, with that range of perspectives around the table, they worked through, and there were probably not a lot of assumptions that went unquestioned as the task force moved forward with their work.

Nevertheless, under the leadership of Mr. Morfitt and Mr. Avison, they were able to complete what I thought was a very thoughtful, balanced, professional, thorough, unbiased report which I think will be a very sound road map for us moving forward in the future.

A. Dix: The minister missed one member. Can he explain why the chief lobbyist for big pharma in Canada, not the generics but the other side…. The generics were within the report, but they weren't part of that. I'm not suggesting necessarily that they should be. I'm just asking: why was the principal lobbyist of big pharma put on a committee whose role it was, essentially, to judge — in part, anyway; there are other issues — the therapeutics initiative, which is the opposite of that, which was the bête noire of big pharma?

You go to the meeting…. They met with the therapeutics initiative. They had, for a report, moderately disparaging things to say about the initiative, considering what it's contributed to our Pharmacare system and our public health system over its many years. I'd be interested to hear the minister's thoughts on that.

The therapeutics initiative has, I think it's pretty clear, saved lives in this province, saved hundreds of millions of dollars. Part of the initiative was to save hundreds of millions of dollars. They've got to go there, and they've got to explain themselves to a government task force, a special task force whose recommendations were all agreed to today by the minister, and they've got to go and explain themselves to Mr. Williams.

Mr. Williams has every right to take part in this debate, but he should have been a witness like the other witnesses to this and contributed that way. He shouldn't have a special role at the table. In my view, it is really surprising and disappointing when you consider that the recommendations were exactly what people in the industry wanted.

I also think the same about the research side of it. Absolutely, it should be part of the discussion. Professor Sindelar is an absolutely excellent professor and has a point of view. His point of view is promoting research and R and D and everything else, which is part of the debate — right? We have a report. One of the major things driving pharmaceutical costs is, I think at times, the rapacious behaviour of big pharma.

We have a report. One of the things driving pharmaceutical costs in Canada were changes to patent laws like the very changes to patent laws we just discussed. In all those cases it's not mentioned in the report. It's like it wasn't there. That's what happens, I think, in fairness, when one extremely powerful group, the Canadian research-based pharmaceutical companies, has all the means in the world to make its presence felt — all the effort in the world. They're not lacking in support. They're not lacking in access.

You know, all the advocacy groups that the government has cut…. They say they can't advocate. You can't do anything. You can't get government funding and advocate. Here we have one of the most highly paid, supported advocates and lobbyists in the country, and he gets put on the task force to decide the future of his industry.

I just disagree with the minister that that's appropriate. I think that it's absolutely bizarre that the therapeutics initiative…. I have not heard — I may be wrong on this — that the problem with the Pharmacare program is the therapeutics initiative. I haven't heard that. If it was, if there were resources questioned, I haven't heard the government coming forward and saying that we should give them more money to do their task.

They were, essentially, if the minister is true to what his press release said in accepting the recommendations…. The therapeutics initiative was toasted by this report. After all their good work, after the support they get from many people in the Ministry of Health itself who know about this and know about the work they do, they were toasted. Who were they toasted by? A committee made up of people who are on the research side of it — and that's fair enough; they should be heard from — and representatives of large pharmaceutical companies. Not local pharmacies but a national pharmacy chain. That's who they were toasted by.

All those people have a right to be part of this debate. Of course they do; it's a democratic country. Big pharma has the same rights as anybody else, but it shouldn't have more rights. They were given a privileged place in this debate, in this task force. Some of that is reflected in the recommendations of the task force. The minister goes through the list and doesn't mention that he also put the principal lobbyist for big pharma in Canada on the committee. I disagree, and I'm asking the minister whether, I guess, he can defend and justify that decision.

Hon. G. Abbott: Well, let's begin by advising the member that I didn't miss anyone. I mentioned Russell

Williams. He is the president of Canada's research-based pharmaceutical companies — Rx&D, as they are known. If the member wishes to disparage Mr. Williams by characterizing him as the chief lobbyist for some group or other…. I guess if he wants to bring the debate down to that level and, you know, exhibit that sort of offensiveness towards an industry leader, he's welcome to do that.

But if he wants to check Hansard he will find that, in fact, I did mention Mr. Williams. The sort of cheap attempt to suggest somehow that I was not including Mr. Williams in the rundown of the nine members of the committee is false and inappropriate.

So in terms of the structure of the committee, again, the object here was not to have a group that was homogeneous of view or of interests. The attempt was to have a group that brought a variety of perspectives and expertise to the table. If it is the member's view, inappropriate and ill-supported as may be the case, that somehow Mr. Williams's presence sullied or drove the other members of the committee in a particular direction, then I would have to say that the member does not know Dr. Robert Sindelar very well. He doesn't know Dr. Mark Schonfeld very well. He doesn't know Sue Paish very well. He doesn't know Paul Gudaitis very well. He doesn't know Gordon Cross very well.

He certainly doesn't know George Morfitt and Don Avison very well if he thinks that having the presence of someone with an industry perspective at the table totally sullied the process. The member can have that view of the world if he wishes. All I can say is that it is an unfortunate view indeed.

It's an unconstructive view which, again, I guess goes to remind the people of British Columbia that the New Democratic Party may not yet be ready for prime-time play. They may just be falling short of having sufficient political maturity to manage the issues of government. That's what I would conclude from a rant of that character, because I think it's insulting to the members of this committee for him to disparage their work in that way.

Further, the therapeutics initiative was not, as the member characterized it, toasted in this report. I think that is unfair. I think there were some thoughtful suggestions with respect to the therapeutics initiative. There were some suggestions that the therapeutics initiative could be more transparent in terms of how its decisions are made. In fact, they don't make decisions. They provide technical advice to the people that make decisions.

But the task force felt that there could be more transparency around that. I presume — because we often hear from members opposite that transparency is a good thing — that they would think that transparency for the therapeutics initiative would be a good idea as well.

I presume, also, that the suggestion that the therapeutics initiative should be structured in a way through a registry to ensure that qualified people are available to do that work within the bounds of the therapeutic initiative…. I presume that that greater inclusiveness would be something the member would be supportive of as well.

Again, I don't see any of what the member has read, and I've read, in the Pharmaceutical Task Force to indicate that the therapeutics initiative was toasted. The task force said — and I think they said it in a most thoughtful and constructive way — that the TI can be improved, that it can be made more inclusive, that it can be made more transparent, that government may wish to phase in to a little different model or that they may leave the TI in place and just see it evolve towards greater transparency and greater inclusiveness.

None of that, it strikes me, is unthoughtful or unconstructive. I think that in fact the recommendations that have been made are precisely that — thoughtful and constructive.

A. Dix: Well, since I'd mentioned Mr. Williams in my first question, I think what I said was: why was he put on the committee? Again, I presume…. I take it from the minister that he was trying to balance all of the views from researchers to the industry to the ministry. There are, presumably, other views and other concerns to be represented.

What the report says, referring to the therapeutics initiative, is: "It is now widely regarded" — widely regarded by whom? — "as being in need of either substantial revitalization or replacement." And it recommends in recommendation 4, a recommendation that I gather — maybe the minister can correct me — the minister has accepted. It says: "The Ministry of Health should establish a new drug review resource committee to carry out the drug submission review role currently performed by the therapeutics initiative."

So I guess the question is…. I mean, the statements about the therapeutics initiative in the report are, I think, given the reality of the situation, disrespectful. It may be very research-based, but the view, the opinion expressed here that the therapeutics initiative is widely regarded as anything but excellent, would be interesting. I'd love to see that note footnoted.

I guess I wanted to ask the minister — because I think that my time is shortly to expire, and my colleague from Vancouver-Kensington will take over — whether recommendation 4, which is the replacement of the therapeutics initiative, has been accepted by the government and if the government is proceeding. Because if it's not, that's an interesting note. That's recommendation 4.

I gather that I may not have understood the complexity of the minister's view when his press release said today: "'Government has accepted all of the recommendations from the Pharmaceutical Task Force,' announced Health Minister" — the member for Shuswap — "today." There may have been nuance in that, which I missed, that applies to everything but recommendation 4, but if that's not the case, maybe the minister can correct the record.

Hon. G. Abbott: The task force report contains 12 recommendations. Recommendation 4 is:

That is recommendation 12, which says that if TI is maintained, they are recommending some changes with respect to how it is done.

I can advise the member that we have not made a decision with respect to whether TI will be maintained or not, whether the term "therapeutics initiative" will be maintained or not. We are consulting with, among others, the dean of medicine at UBC to think about those things.

We are endorsing all 12 of the recommendations, so if the decision is to maintain therapeutics initiative, it will be maintained in an enhanced form that does speak to the issues of inclusiveness — that is, the expanded registry of qualified scientists who can deal with this and having additional transparency around the evidence base for the decisions that it makes.

D. Chudnovsky: Good afternoon to you, Chair, and good afternoon to the minister and to members of the staff. Great to be here this afternoon. My first foray into the wilds of the Ministry of Health.

I want to begin, if I may, by talking about bedbugs. I wonder whether the minister could help the committee understand what his and the ministry's understanding is of the problem of bedbugs, the infestation of bedbugs. First, I want to talk about Vancouver, and then perhaps we could broaden the discussion after that.

Hon. G. Abbott: I know we're moving from pharmaceuticals to bedbugs here. It won't surprise you that our resident expert on bedbugs is not in the room at the moment, so it will be a moment. If the member has other questions, maybe, in the interim, then we can come back to that when he gets here. Is that okay?

D. Chudnovsky: I'm fine with that. We could maybe, then, move…. I understand that there are all kinds of people that might be necessary for all parts of this discussion, so let me try another one, and we'll see how we do.

The minister will be aware, I hope, that one of my responsibilities is in the area of mental health. Could the minister help us with the amount in the budget that is directed specifically to the issue of mental health in the coming year?

Hon. G. Abbott: The projected number for mental health and addictions across all programs is $1,127,289,000.

D. Chudnovsky: The minister will be aware, I know, that there's a relationship between mental health problems and challenges that people have and homelessness in the province. I wonder whether he could talk to us a little bit about what his sense of that relationship is. Let me finish the question there.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm gratified that the member would ask me this question. My sense of it is that often there is a correlation between the issue of homelessness, mental health issues and addiction issues — that those conditions tend to reinforce and exacerbate one another. So often, when one tries to pull the knot apart, one can find that there are a number of components to these issues. That would be, I guess, in a crude kind of way, my analysis of it.

D. Chudnovsky: Of course, I agree with what the minister has said. There certainly is a relationship in many cases of homelessness in the province. There's clearly a relationship between mental health challenges, addiction problems and homelessness, and I want to get into that in a bit more detail, especially on the programmatic side, in a minute.

We, I think, would also be able to agree that there are thousands of homeless people in the province who neither have an addiction issue nor a mental health problem, or both. But that's not on his agenda. Those folks, at least, aren't on his agenda.

The question that I want to ask is: what specifically are the programs under the ministry that deal with those people who are homeless as a result of or in combination with or in the situation that the minister a few minutes ago described? There is a relationship between mental health issues and addiction issues and homelessness. What I'm asking about is: what is it that the ministry does in trying to engage with and resolve those problems that are tied up in that knot that the minister described a few minutes ago?

Hon. G. Abbott: The challenge is a complex one. I'm sure that the member agrees with that. Just as there are many facets to the challenge, I think there are many facets to our response to that challenge. We have seen an expansion over the years of out-patient services in communities across the province to deal with mental health and addictions issues. Frequently there's a concurrency between those mental health and addictions issues.

We also work very closely with the ministry for housing around supportive facilities across the province. I'm sure that the member, as critic in this area, has taken the opportunity to canvass these matters with the Minister of Forests and Minister Responsible for Housing in his estimates.

I can advise the member that the province has made considerable gains over the years in terms of mental health supported beds. In 2001 there were 548 mental health supported beds; in 2007, 939. It would be a larger number today. So Interior Health went from 548 to 939.

In Fraser Health: 1,498 in 2001 to 1,913 in 2007. In Vancouver Coastal Health: 1,769 in 2001; 2,447 in 2007. In Vancouver Island Health Authority: 930 in 2001; 1,506 in 2007. Northern Health Authority: 195 in 2001; 306 in 2007.

If one aggregates those regional numbers, the comparator on mental health beds is 4,940 in 2001, growing very substantially to 7,111 in 2007. So there's been a very, very substantial increase in the number of mental health supported beds in this province.

I won't go through all the regional numbers, but on the addictions side — similarly, major growth in that area. In Vancouver Coastal Health, for example, we moved from 173 addiction supported beds in 2003 up to 1,312 in 2007, or overall, an increase from 874 addiction beds in 2003 to 2,102 in 2007.

That, I'm sure the member would agree, is an important part of the equation with respect to mental health and addictions beds, which often…. In the absence of those supported beds, one would undoubtedly see more problems in the homelessness area as well.

I should also point out, and the member may already know this, that we believe that the new Burnaby centre for dual diagnosis — that is, addictions exacerbated by a mental health issue — will also be an important part of building the continuum that ranges, again, from out-patient community services through to the forensic centre for criminal mental health issues at Coquitlam.

I think we will strengthen that continuum with the dual-diagnosis treatment centre. I think we're all committed to continuing to build the continuum.

D. Chudnovsky: We'll have an opportunity, I hope, in a few minutes to talk in more detail about the Willingdon centre and to understand better what the plans are and what the realities are for that plan.

I want to stick for a moment with the broader overview and ask whether the minister is aware — I'm sure that the minister is aware — of the recent report of a Simon Fraser team that worked, I know, together with the ministry and identified between 8,000 and 15,500 homeless people in the province with either mental health challenges or addiction problems or both. I know that the minister will be aware of that work.

I'm wondering whether, in the face of that work, the minister is convinced that the work that's done specifically by the ministry to deal with people who are homeless with mental health issues or addiction problems or both has been a success.

It would strike me that one of the conclusions that one can draw from the work that's been done by the Simon Fraser report, in cooperation with people from the ministry, is that we're not doing very well when it comes to providing the support that people who are homeless, in combination with mental health challenges or addiction problems or both…. We're not doing very well if we have something in the order of 12,000 people in the province who fit into that category and who don't have any place to live.

If the member wishes to debate numbers around homelessness, he should debate those with the Minister Responsible for Housing. I would say this. As long as there are people who suffer from issues around addictions, around mental health issues and around homelessness issues, our government will be constantly vigilant and our government will be constantly looking for new and better ways to manage the needs of that vulnerable community.

As I mentioned, when we took office, there were 4,940 mental health supported beds in this province. By 2007 we had dramatically increased the number of those mental health supported beds to 7,111. Similarly, we have dramatically increased the number of addiction supported beds in this province — 874 in 2003, 2,102 in 2007. There have been huge investments made by our government in this area.

It is always easy, I guess, for anyone to say that the problem hasn't gone away; therefore, you haven't made the right decisions, or you haven't done enough. Those kind of assertions hold up well until you actually compare them to the performance of the government that preceded us. At that point, it starts to look very good — the results that we have undertaken.

There is no question that there is a challenge there, and we are moving aggressively to meet that challenge. I'm proud of the work that has been done across government. I'm proud that we are continuing to work towards, as well as we can, better management of these issues.

D. Chudnovsky: The reality that communities and individuals face in our province is that we have never, ever had the crisis of homelessness among British Columbians, going back to the Great Depression, and among British Columbians who have mental health and addictions problems in the history of British Columbia. It never existed.

While the minister may want to debate what did happen in another century or another millennium, our job — what the people are paying us to do right now — is for me to ask the minister about the programs that he is responsible for in the current situation, the results of those programs and the lack of results of those programs.

It seems to me that it's perfectly legitimate — and not only legitimate but my responsibility and his — to discuss the crisis of homelessness that exists on our streets today in British Columbia, suffered by people

with mental health challenges and addictions challenges. That's our job. That's what the people are paying us for.

A colloquium about the history of another millennium, we can convene some other time and some other place. Our job today — and the people are paying us today — is to talk about what's going on in the province right now. Anybody who has got eyes in the province right now knows that we are suffering a crisis of homelessness, especially among people with mental health and addictions problems, like none that we've ever seen before.

So my question is — I'll ask it one more time: given that reality, given that we've never seen anything like this before, can the minister say whether he considers the work that's being done in this area — that is, providing services to people with mental health or addictions problems who are homeless — a success? Can we say to the people of the province that we're succeeding?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I can appreciate why the member would not wish to discuss a previous millennium and the government that occupied the seat of power in this province during that period. I can totally appreciate that, given that there was a most remarkable differentiation between what was promised and the rhetoric around those promises and what was actually delivered. I can appreciate that he wouldn't be comfortable talking about the 1990s for that reason. Fair enough.

If the member is saying, "Are you satisfied that we have been able to deal with the homelessness issue and mental health issues and addictions issues as effectively as you would like?" the answer, to me, is that as long as there is one individual who is out on the street, who is homeless, who is wanting to deal with a mental health issue and is not getting the support or has an addiction issue and is not getting the support, then I'm not going to be satisfied. We're going to keep working through and doing the very best job we can in terms of meeting those challenges.

For the member to somehow pretend that the 1990s was a utopian period when these problems didn't exist is absurd. Moreover, our government has taken definitive steps in respect to the regionalization of facilities at Riverview. The NDP government was part of the deinstitutionalization wave of the '80s and '90s, and a lot of people with mental health issues who are on the street and homeless are a product of a deinstitutionalization strategy that our government was never a part of but that the NDP government of the day was certainly a part of.

What we have done — and there have been enormous investments in this area — since 2001 is facilities like South Hills in Kamloops, Aberdeen in Vernon. There are many, many regional facilities across the province that provide those supportive community mental health facilities closer to home. So we've been able to see the devolution of Riverview to great effect in places like Smithers, Prince George in the north, communities in the Interior, communities on Vancouver Island.

Across the province it has been a great success, I would say — the devolution of Riverview. We've seen hundreds of patients who have been able to go back and be closer to their family, to their friends and who still live in a supportive environment in facilities that did not exist prior to 2001.

That has been a huge step. That's not deinstitutionalization. That is regionalization and devolution, and it is quite distinct from deinstitutionalization.

Is there additional work to do? Absolutely, there is. Not for a moment would I be satisfied with conditions as they are. Have we made appropriate steps and huge, bold steps in the right direction? Yes, we have, and we'll continue to do that.

D. Chudnovsky: Well, this member and this opposition have never argued that the '90s were utopian. In fact, governments in the '90s made errors and didn't do some things that they should have done. But they didn't, on their watch, have 10,000 to 15,000 homeless people in British Columbia. They didn't, on their watch, have the crisis of homelessness, especially for people with addictions and mental health problems, that we have today in B.C.

The proof of that is the eyes of the people of the province. It is this government that must take responsibility for what's happened on its watch on the issue of homelessness and mental health and addiction services in this province. They have to be accountable for that. My job is to hold them to account for that, and I'll continue to do so.

How many of those devolved beds, for people from Riverview, have been built since 2001 in Vancouver Coastal?

Hon. G. Abbott: It was interesting, in the dissertation that the member gave, that he didn't say: "One of the things our government never did was deinstitutionalize patients from Riverview and not follow up with appropriate supports." That is a big part of the problem today — the deinstitutionalization of the '80s and '90s — and that is the whirlwind we are reaping today, in part. I didn't hear the member disclaim that.

In terms of the Riverview devolution project since 2001…. First of all, I should point out that it has been least successful in the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. Some 209 beds were allocated for the devolution for Vancouver Coastal. At this point only nine tertiary rehab beds have been transferred. There's an important reason why 200 have been allocated but have not been realized to date in Vancouver Coastal Health. That is because Vancouver Coastal Health has looked at approximately 100 sites for facilities, and for a variety of reasons — most commonly, the inability to secure rezonings from local governments — those 200 have not been realized.

In other parts of the province there has been much more success. I would say that among the most

successful have been Northern Health. We have facilities…. I won't give you the numbers, but we've got Iris House in Prince George, North Peace Care Centre in Fort St. John, Bulkley Lodge in Smithers and Seven Sisters in Terrace. They are among those that have been very successful.

In Interior Health, examples would be Hillside in Kamloops, South Hills in Kamloops, Country Squire in Osoyoos, the F.W. Green in Cranbrook, Aberdeen in Vernon, Harbour House in Trail and Polson hospital in Vernon. For both Northern Health and Interior, they have fully utilized the allocation of beds that were to be devolved.

Vancouver Island Health Authority has been quite successful as well. We've seen the units added — Seven Oaks at Sandringham and at St. Paul's Hospital in Comox. Fraser Health — less successful, but some progress. Delta View 1 in Delta, Connolly Lodge in Coquitlam, Cottonwood in Coquitlam, and Delta View 2 in Delta. Vancouver Coastal Health has been least successful, in large measure because they have had enormous challenge in terms of securing rezonings for their projects.

D. Chudnovsky: Thanks to the minister for that answer. I think that we could all agree that an average of 1.1 beds per year over the last eight years in Vancouver Coastal is…. "Least successful" would be a charitable way of describing what's happened, notwithstanding the real challenges in doing the work, which we wouldn't deny.

That is a very, very disappointing — disappointing is an understatement — result, especially considering the fact that a majority of the population of the province lives in that region. I wonder if I could ask…. There are a number of other questions that I want to pursue in this area, but can we go back to the bedbug issue now, or is it a bad time?

D. Chudnovsky: We could? Again, I wanted to ask the minister what his understanding of the bedbug infestation problem is, beginning by talking about the Vancouver situation.

Hon. G. Abbott: Bedbugs are a concern to the health authorities and to the ministry — no question about that. We have seen substantial infestations, particularly in some low-end rental units, not exclusively in the city of Vancouver, but probably most prominently there.

I'm not an epidemiologist or a physician. Of course, the member isn't either, so that's probably helpful. We can work our way through it. I'm advised that there are not immediate disease issues which stem from the presence of bedbugs, but there is a risk of secondary infections that would result from people scratching the bites and that sort of thing. It is a concern.

I understand that the province and the health authorities are working with Health Canada to try to identify more effective control mechanisms for bedbugs. With some of the chemical solutions that have been eliminated, it's challenging to get effective control, and there's some work being done to try to identify more effective control measures.

D. Chudnovsky: I wonder whether the minister could help us by letting us know if there are programs in place for dealing with…. He did mention working with Health Canada. That's great. Are there programs in place for dealing with bedbug infestation? What are those programs, and what is the provincial participation in those programs?

Hon. G. Abbott: There is some advice around bedbugs on B.C. HealthFiles — in particular, B.C. HealthFile No. 95, October 2005, which looks at issues…. Are bedbugs a health concern? It discusses that. How can bedbugs be prevented? It discusses that. How can I get rid of bedbugs? It discusses that. It also provides the coordinates to contact B.C. NurseLine to speak to a registered nurse in respect of that, should people have additional questions.

D. Chudnovsky: It would be interesting as an academic exercise, although probably not a really good expenditure of provincial resources, to do some kind of survey to calculate how many of the people who live in bedbug-infested accommodation have available to them the website of the ministry. I don't know. I'm not sure that it's a lot of them.

I want to go back to the issue of health concerns. I want to agree with the minister. It's my understanding that there isn't an immediate health concern arising from bedbugs, but there are secondary concerns — I'm not talking about secondary infection issues — that are of tremendous importance. They have to do not just with the discomfort, which is dramatic and difficult and painful, but with the response that people often have to bedbug infestation.

I want to report on numbers of conversations that I've had with homeless people in the province — I've spoken with hundreds of them over the last three or four months — many of whom say that bedbug infestation keeps people from being housed. There are many, many people in the province for whom the bedbug infestation problem is so acute, so uncomfortable and so difficult to live with — and I've met these people — that rather than being inside in the bedbug infestation housing, they choose to stay out.

We all know, and the minister will be very aware, that as a result of living rough, there are all kinds of consequences. We just had the report of the provincial Coroners Service a couple of weeks ago that showed a much higher death rate among people who are homeless, for all kinds of reasons that are pretty obvious to anybody who thinks about it.

If the bedbug infestation is driving people to be homeless, then that's a health concern, and I'm sure the minister will agree. I don't think there's an argument to be had about this. So I'm looking to find more specific…. Is there a strategy? Is there a plan? Is there a plan for a plan?

Is there some place in the ministry where this issue, which often is seen as kind of picayune by some people on first blush…? If you think about it a little bit more, it's a very serious public health issue. Can we expect from the ministry a strategy that takes into account what I would argue is a very serious public health hazard?

Hon. G. Abbott: I can advise the member that the Ministry of Health and the health authorities are working with the local governments and with Health Canada to try to find more effective control measures. I should also note, in response to the member's previous comments, that health authorities will provide paper-based information with respect to dealing with bedbug issues and that that same information is also found in the B.C. HealthGuide.

D. Chudnovsky: I want to make a couple of practical suggestions arising from my experience speaking with people on the ground about this issue, and I repeat that that comes from discussions with people suffering from this problem over the last few months.

I want to say, first of all, that I had a very, very educational and useful discussion with people at VANDU, some of whom were in the House today — the Vancouver area network of injection drug users — who have done a lot of work on this issue of bedbugs.

I recommend highly to the minister and, through him, to ministry officials that they engage in a discussion with those folks who are dealing, as the member from Mount Pleasant said in the House earlier today, with some of the most marginalized people in the province — wonderful people, many of them. They are people — who I saw the minister taking the time to speak with this afternoon in the hallway, which was great to see — who have a tremendous amount of practical experience with this problem and some very specific suggestions for solutions.

I recommend to the minister through the Chair, the new Chair…. It's a delight to see the new Chair here this afternoon. Great to see you.

D. Chudnovsky: The old Chair — you know, we can take him or leave him, but the new Chair looks pretty good.

So that's the first piece of advice. There are people certainly on the Downtown Eastside, who have been working on the ground with this issue, suffering from the problem. I recommend to the minister and, through him, to his staff and the region, to talk with those people — people like Carnegie. DERA, I know, has worked on this issue, and a number of other folks. I think that their experience is very helpful.

Another thing that I heard directly from people suffering in this area was that washing machines are a good part of the strategy here. Washing machines with a very high temperature control. Those are very, very useful. It seems a simple thing, but many, many people who are suffering from this public health hazard don't have available to them that very, very simple control mechanism. I don't think it's an answer, but I think it's a helpful tool. I share that with the minister based on the experience of discussions that I've had with a number of people.

I wonder if I could ask, then: what other communities in the province is the ministry aware of where there is a bedbug infestation which is causing significant problems?

Hon. G. Abbott: In terms of suggestions around best practices or innovations in better management of these issues, we certainly welcome advice from any quarter in terms of that. That's always welcome.

In terms of communities that are affected by the bedbugs issue, I'm advised that there tend to be more substantial problems in warmer climates versus colder climates, but there is probably no city or town in the nation that's necessarily immune from bedbug infestations. It tends to be something we see more in the larger cities — Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal — but it is by no means limited to large communities. Bedbug infestations can emerge pretty much anywhere.

D. Chudnovsky: I would wrap up this little section of my questions by recommending strongly to the minister and to the ministry that a provincial strategy on bedbug infestation would be something that I think would not only be useful in improving quality of life for people but would be an initiative that would have a profound effect on public health, among other things, because of the connection between bedbug infestation and homelessness. So I encourage the minister and his staff to find a way to create the conditions under which we begin to deal more effectively together with that issue.

If I could turn back to the discussion we were having before with respect to programming on a provincial level for those with mental health or addiction issues or both. The minister will recall that he laid out for us a number of supportive housing initiatives. Could the minister explain to the committee what the accountability mechanisms are for our work with British Columbians who have health problems — addiction health problems or mental health problems or both? That is, how do we measure how we're doing in those areas?

Hon. G. Abbott: Let me begin just by correcting the record in a modest way. In articulating the facilities in the Vancouver Island Health Authority — the devolution facilities from Riverview — I got my saints mixed up. I said "St. Paul's," when I should have said "St. Joseph's." I just wanted to make sure that people are able to sleep well, because St. Paul's, mercifully, is not in Comox. It would be a very large facility if located in Comox.

So the way in which we work through the issues around mental health and addictions and how we're doing is…. The first reference document the member would wish to consult is the Ministry of Health service plan. It looks at key activities of the service plan, the continuum of mental health and addiction services, expanding drug and alcohol treatment for at-risk and addicted people and so on. There are many key activities that are articulated in that plan.

Based on the Ministry of Health service plan, we annually create letters of expectation for the health authorities, which later become embodied in their three-year health authority service plans. They look at a range of issues and indicators to look at how well things are going, and I'll give you some examples of indicators and expectations that we would look at.

For example, we would look in all health authorities at individuals with mental illness and/or substance abuse disorder who are receiving regular care from a family physician at a greater level than that of the general population. We're looking at 76 percent of people with a severe mental health disorder who spent no time in hospital, and we're seeing a decreasing percentage of that over the last four years. We're looking at suicides following discharge, and that's been consistently low. We look at mortality rates among people with serious mental disorders and try to track those kinds of issues.

D. Chudnovsky: Where do those indicators come from? Who decided what the indicators were, and how was that decided?

Hon. G. Abbott: The indicators are developed through a collaborative process that involves not only the ministry and the health authorities but also the universities of our province, supported by international and national experts and supported by the literature in this area.

D. Chudnovsky: Is that an ongoing process? For instance, would we see changes in the indicators year to year, or is there a biannual review? What's the process by which those indicators get developed?

Hon. G. Abbott: The work is ongoing and evolutionary. We try to be informed by contemporary literature, contemporary developments that can help to drive continuous improvement in this area, just as we try in areas of physical health to learn from what is happening provincially, nationally and internationally, to take that work and, where appropriate, to try to make it a best practice in British Columbia. So yes, we are evolving, and we're constantly informing ourselves of what is going on in the broader world.

D. Chudnovsky: Those indicators that you were talking about, the accountability measures for work in the field of mental health and addictions treatment…. The minister read me what I assumed was a partial list. I wonder if he could let us know two things. It's dangerous, always dangerous, to ask two questions at once.

Firstly, and it may be that I've seen them already, but where could we find those? Secondly, are those indicators the same for each of the health regions? He talked earlier about letters of expectation, which are turned into a list of indicators. Are those lists the same for every region? Is the expectation that we have of each region the same, based on the same indicators?

Hon. G. Abbott: The service plans would have the same indicators in them, and people wishing to access either the Ministry of Health service plan or health authority service plans could access them on line, for those that have that available, or in libraries.

D. Chudnovsky: Have there been any changes in services or supports for those with mental health issues or addiction problems based on the assessment of how the health authorities are doing with respect to the indicators? The minister has laid out that this is the accountability mechanism. We hear that. How are we using that accountability mechanism, and does it inform changes in policy and procedures? If so, which ones?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, and a very good example of this would be what was announced in the throne speech, which was the Burnaby centre for individuals with dual-diagnosis — that is, individuals who are struggling with a combination of a serious mental illness like bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, exacerbated by an addiction to alcohol and/or drugs.

D. Chudnovsky: I want to understand that process a little bit better. The minister says that the establishment of the Burnaby centre, which I know we'll have time to talk about in more detail, results from how the regions have done in terms of fulfilling the expectations or meeting the indicators that have been agreed to. I want to understand better how that process works. Who does the assessment based on the indicators? How do we get from there to the establishment of, for instance, the good example that the minister has given, the Burnaby centre?

Hon. G. Abbott: We get there…. Again, I don't want to sort of construct an alternative universe, because these things are rarely as simple as one has to communicate them. When we have a situation where the needs of a portion of the patient or client population are either being unmet or are being ineffectively met, I think that is something that certainly comes to the fore in terms of the health authority's evaluation of the problem, but it's also something that the Ministry of Health assesses as well.

In the case of the dual-diagnosed, we know from the discussions that we have had with justice officials,

with hospital officials and with others that there is a community component both on the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver, but one could probably find a smaller cohort in Prince George or Kelowna, or you know, one could just fill in the blank. But there is a very difficult population that regularly offends and reoffends, that regularly finds themselves in emergency departments or in jail cells or in courtrooms, etc. That is why the conclusions were formed.

Obviously, the Ministry of Health doesn't solely possess the wisdom to note that there's a problem. The on-the-ground people and the health authorities know well when there's a gap in the continuum that needs to be met. I think, to everyone's credit in the case of the centre for the dual-diagnosed, that that has been done.

In many, many areas we're always trying to improve the provision of services to those who are afflicted by mental health issues and/or addictions issues, and we observe those and try to make appropriate adjustments to meet those.

D. Chudnovsky: I want to say that the minister has, in a sense, asked my next question in his answer. The question I asked was: how do the indicators specifically lead to changes in policy? The minister gave the example of the Burnaby centre. Then when I asked, "Tell me more about that; how does that work," the answer wasn't about the indicators at all. It was about a whole bunch of other ways — and I don't dispute those ways at all — in which we determine that policy needs to be made or changed.

So the minister gave the example of information that's derived from discussions with people in the justice system — absolutely. He talked about, as he did when he announced the centre, the kind of disruptive nature of behaviour of some of the people with the most significant and dramatic problems — for instance, on the Downtown Eastside. I accept that as a motivator, certainly, for policy development or policy change. That's completely acceptable to me.

I might add that the report of the Vancouver police department might be another — the report that was made public a couple of months ago which is a dramatic indictment of the way in which business has been done up till now. There are all these other things.

So I wonder whether — I wonder whether I'm getting through — that's more the motivator for policy development and policy change. That is the kind of experience on the ground, whether it's the report of the Vancouver police department or it's anecdotal reports from citizens or it's the justice system folks, or a myriad of other things.

So the question really goes to a couple of points, but one of them is: are the indicators really helping us? Are they the accountability mechanism? If so, with great respect, I don't think the minister has described that yet. He has said it, but he hasn't described it yet, at least to my understanding or satisfaction.

If that's the way it works, okay, I want to hear more about that. If it isn't, isn't it really these other mechanisms that are driving policy?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm trying to understand where the member is going on this. I indicated at the outset, when he asked what the indicators are that we're looking at, that we looked at indicators such as the number of individuals with a mental illness and/or substance abuse disorder who are receiving regular care from a family physician. We discussed the number of individuals who would spend time in hospital as a consequence of a severe mental disorder. We talked about suicides following discharge. We talked about mortality rates among people with a serious mental disorder.

I don't know, from the member's last observations, what point he's making. If he thinks that these are the wrong indicators, then I'm happy to hear his account of what he thinks the right indicators would be. That would be most welcome.

Obviously, indicators have to be selected. I'm advised by staff that these are appropriate and useful indicators, that the ministry and the health authorities are regularly discussing these indicators — and, no doubt, the real-world implications of these indicators — in those regular discussions.

I'm further advised that the example I cited, of the processes leading up to the determination that a centre for the dual-diagnosed would be a valuable thing, was in many ways a product of the outgrowth of the discussion around the indicators.

I know the member is a passionate and enthusiastic debater, and if he's got suggestions to put on the table and drive forward, I'd be delighted to hear them. Maybe it's because it's 5:25 in the afternoon. As much as I love to read the tea leaves and try to understand where people are going…. He can be blunt with me, and then we'll know.

D. Chudnovsky: Whoa. Maybe I'm not going anywhere. Maybe I just want to know and understand better. The minister presents…. Prickly, isn't he, at 5:25. That's probably unparliamentary. I withdraw it immediately.

Perhaps there's no more to be explored with this, but maybe there is. I don't know. The ministry establishes indicators for accountability purposes. I'm told by members opposite that this is the most accountable and transparent government in the history of the universe. We hear it all the time. It flies in the face of reality sometimes, but maybe in this case it is. Maybe these indicators are the most accountable and transparent and useful indicators in the history of the universe.

What I'm trying to get at is the relationship and the process by which we take the assessment of the indicators and we make that into program development or policy development and policy change. I haven't heard that so far, except in very, very general terms.

We have the indicators, and we have policies. Yep, I'll agree with that. I'm trying to understand better what the processes are between the assessment of the indicators and the changes in policy. But perhaps we've gone as far as we can on that.

Are there any other indicators specific to those with mental health and addiction needs who are homeless? Do we have any indicators that we assess in our ac-

countability processes, which I'm told are the most transparent and accountable in the history of the universe, that refer specifically to the needs of homeless people who have mental health and/or addiction problems? What are those indicators, and what have we learned?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member asked what among the performance measures or indicators would be ones that would have application to the homeless. An example would be, and this is from the ministry service plan…. The performance measure is: percentage of persons aged 65-plus hospitalized for a mental health and/or substance disorder who receive community or physician follow-up within 30 days of discharge.

Again, this is not going to be a perfect reflection of whether they're homeless or not homeless after discharge, but it is a measure of the stability in their lives in the period after they are discharged from a facility. There's a similar performance measure for those under the age of 65. That would be an example of the application of it, but again, we're not attempting to measure homelessness with these indicators. We are trying to measure the effectiveness of mental health and substance abuse issues.

D. Chudnovsky: Before I go on to explore that answer a little bit, are there any other examples in the service plans or the indicators that the minister has in front of him that would be other examples of ways in which the indicators relate directly to the question of people who suffer from mental health problems and/or addiction problems who are homeless?

Hon. G. Abbott: In answer to the member's question, the Ministry of Health service plan for '07-08 has a new indicator in it: number of people with a mental disorder receiving housing with supports.

D. Chudnovsky: Among the reasons that the question was asked is that in my experience of speaking with both homeless people and service providers for homeless people, one of the things that is very clear — and it's not just something that I'm reporting; it's identified by lots of people with whom I've spoken — is that there is a problem with people being discharged from hospitals and other treatment facilities becoming immediately homeless. They're discharged either to the street, which happens often, or they're discharged to emergency shelters, which happens more often.

I'm wondering whether there is a place in the indicators — or anywhere else, for that matter — where the ministry tracks that kind of thing and understands better what it is that's happening to people who are ill and who are treated. Either their medical situation has improved or, I have to tell the minister, it is the case sometimes that their medical situation hasn't improved — which is certainly what's been reported to me on enough occasions that I'm satisfied it's the case — and then they are discharged, very often to emergency shelters.

For instance, I have spoken with people who are supervisory people in emergency shelters and who have told me on numbers of occasions — not just once; it's enough that you can count them — that people arrive at the emergency shelter, having been discharged from hospital or other treatment facilities, who are too ill for them to be appropriately cared for in the emergency shelter.

I mean, there's a policy question to be had about how that happens and how it could happen. But the previous question to that, for me, is: are there ways within the ministry, within the health regions, that we can keep track of that and understand it better so that we can improve our treatment for these people who are ill?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member, in his question, expresses a concern about inappropriate discharge of individuals from facilities. Conceptually, that can certainly happen. Without more information on what the member is precisely talking about, it's difficult to form conclusions about what happened in that case.

I'm advised that all of the health authorities have fulsome discharge plans for their facilities, including discharge plans in the event that the individual is homeless. Again, the suggestion may be valid, but one would have to have more information in order to form conclusions about it.

In terms of developments that are germane to the issues that the member is raising, there is a lot of proactive planning that is now going on between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry for Housing — particularly B.C. Housing — around the homeless and the homeless that are physically or mentally ill. That is useful work that is ongoing.

I would also reference, for the member's attention, the addition of what are termed assertive community treatment teams in Vancouver Island Health Authority, specifically in the city of Victoria. These are outreach teams that involve nurses, police officers and others who reach out to the homeless and try to identify mental or physical ailments or issues among the street-entrenched youth and others, and thereby try to avoid, where possible, the necessity for hospitalization. It's an opportunity to try to support those homeless or street-entrenched youth in access to health facilities, mental health facilities, addiction facilities, employment, housing, etc.

I think the ACT teams have some considerable promise. We are looking with the health authorities at the possible extension of ACT teams to other parts of the province, and I think it would be a development that's consistent with our new emphasis on primary care in communities.

D. Chudnovsky: It's good to hear the minister's endorsation of assertive community treatment. I think that's a direction that we will want to go into. I'm not

sure that there might not be a semantic issue that we could explore at some length about what assertive community treatment is. It sounded to me….

I know that in the mayor's task force report there's a commitment to assertive community treatment in Victoria. That's a good thing and, I think, something to be watched very carefully, although in the minister's description of assertive community treatment I'm not sure I didn't hear more like a job description for an outreach worker. An outreach worker certainly would be part of assertive community treatment.

That's a good thing. I'm pleased to hear that from the minister, and I think we need to deepen that discussion and deepen our understanding of what that might look like in terms of helping people who are homeless and specifically those with mental health and addiction problems who are homeless.

Having said all of that, I want to go back to the other question that got the minister rolling down the ACT road, and that was the issue of inappropriate discharge, which was the way that the minister described it. It's not really the responsibility of the opposition, although I will look in my notes and see where and when we heard about these issues.

I was doing a different job, or I had different tasks at hand, when those reports were made to me. I was suggesting, and I think it's a reasonable and responsible suggestion and one that the minister and the health regions might embrace, that one indicator that would be helpful for us in understanding how well we're doing — that is, in helping us to be accountable when it comes to homeless people who happen to have mental health or addictions issues or both — would be to have a sense of how many and when those people are discharged from hospital or treatment facilities to homelessness, including emergency shelters. That's an important thing for us to know if we're going to do the kind of work that we're all committed to do. That was my suggestion.

I was asking whether the minister is aware that that kind of accountability, that kind of indicator, is in use in health regions. Now, the response I got was, respectfully, kind of a defensive response. That wasn't the nature of the question.

The question had to do with what would be useful for us in helping people who have been ill, who continue to be ill, who get discharged from hospitals or treatment facilities to homelessness, and the suggestion that I'm making is that that would be good for us to know. It would be good to have an indicator that helped us to know and understand that that's happening and how often it's happening and what happens to those people. I get back: "Yeah, tell me one or else it might not be real." It's real. I talk to people who work in this area on the ground in emergency shelters, and they tell us about it.

So my question is: does the minister think it would be a good idea for us to develop — call it an indicator, call it a protocol, call it whatever you want…? It would be useful for us to know about that in developing our work in this area.

The first thing that we need to be clear on is that a decision to discharge is a medical decision. Whether the person comes to us from an emergency shelter or whether they come from their home or whether they come from some other situation, we receive them regardless of where they came from. The decision to discharge is a medical decision based on the fitness of the individual to be discharged.

In some instances, if the individual came to us from an emergency shelter, they are likely to be discharged back to an emergency shelter, but they should not be discharged at a time when they still have medical needs that can only be met in the facility. Hopefully, that's useful. Again, I wasn't trying to offend the member when I said that we'd need more information in order to follow up on that. I said that conceptually that could be an issue, and with more information we would be able to further understand the situation.

The member had suggested in his question, or asked the question…. In fairness, he didn't make the suggestion. He asked: would it be a good indicator to say how many and when homeless people are discharged from facilities to homelessness? Because people are going to be discharged into a variety of circumstances, we still believe that the better measure is the one which I articulated earlier from the Ministry of Health service plan, which is: was there a 30-day follow-up on the individual with the mental illness or substance abuse issue? Was there a 30-day follow-up in terms of addressing their issues?

D. Chudnovsky: Interesting answer. I find it very interesting. While I wouldn't deny the value of the indicator that the minister talked about, I find it interesting that he wouldn't agree that the other information would be useful and helpful for us, but that's what he said.

I want to talk, if I may, about the Burnaby centre, the Willingdon centre. First of all, do I understand correctly that the renovations are slated to cost $3.5 million and that this is a temporary facility and the lifespan of the use of that building with those renovations will be five years? Is that correct?

Hon. G. Abbott: The anticipated capital cost for this facility, the retrofit of this facility, is $1.8 million, and we expect the life of the facility to be about five years. We don't believe this is going to be the permanent home for this. What we intend to do, through the work that will be done at Willingdon, is to better understand what the optimal physical facility would look like for individuals with this diagnosis, and we would begin our planning work in respect of a replacement facility, perhaps as soon as five years.

D. Chudnovsky: I apologize for using the figure $3.5 million. I thought that was the figure. So $1.8 million is the retrofit cost.

Now, I'm wondering what the genesis of the particular model was, because if you look at the literature, best practices for the population that I understand will be in the facility — the best practices from what I can see — are the housing-first model plus supports for that population, the supports that are sufficient for success, and this model seems to be dramatically different from that.

So I'm wondering what the genesis of the project was in terms of the best practices that are — and that to some extent the minister even talked about earlier today — being used, certainly in North America, around this population.

Hon. G. Abbott: In terms of the model that underpins the Willingdon centre for individuals with a dual diagnosis, that model was built with reference both to national and international literature in this area. It was built in long and intensive consultation with health authority leaders in Vancouver Coastal and elsewhere. It engaged psychiatric experts from the province's universities. It engaged police departments and their advice. So I think the model is a sound one.

In terms of why this model versus, I think, what the member was suggesting, which is to continue to build on the number of mental health supported beds and addictions supported beds…. Maybe the member wasn't suggesting that. If I've misconstrued him, then I didn't intend to do it to be offensive. I'm just trying to understand the point.

These are what we would term higher-acuity individuals. These are individuals who are very largely non-functional in society. If the member recalls the Vancouver police department report that was released, there was reference to an individual named Bill in there. Bill was the anonymized name for a real individual who does live in Vancouver, sometimes at the forensic psychiatric centre.

Bill has daily, sometimes hourly, interactions with the Vancouver police department, with the emergency rooms in Vancouver Coastal, with courts, with social workers. He is offending and re-offending on an almost constant basis because he is afflicted with a combination of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and addictions to alcohol and some drugs.

There have been many, many attempts to have Bill live either in mental health supported beds or in addiction supported beds. Invariably, it has been a failure. Bill has a high level of acuity, a high level of need. His most recent run-ins with the law ended up with him in the forensic psychiatric centre. We believe that this facility will be useful in trying to manage the needs of people like Bill.

When Bill is discharged, the model that we have in mind is one that will see him, hopefully, stabilized on his meds. One of his problems is that he frequently will go off his meds, and the schizophrenic issues will confront him, or the bipolar issues will confront him. So he needs to be stabilized on his meds. He needs to withdraw from the addictions issues that he has.

When Bill is discharged from the centre, hypothetically, he will be moving into a mental health or addictions supported bed or perhaps some combination of the two. We also want to have…. What will likely be required will be daily follow-up from either something like or precisely like the assertive community treatment teams that we have in Victoria. I think that unless Bill is constantly monitored in terms of his progress, chances are that he'll return to some of the issues that would put him in the facility in the first place.

I apologize to the member if this is more of an answer than he expected. I seem to fail on that account sometimes, giving very expansive answers where simple ones were requested. In this case, I think the core of the answer to the question that the member asked is that these are very high-acuity individuals.

These are probably in number perhaps 200 on the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver. There are not a huge number of people like Bill, but there are a sufficient number that they certainly make lots of waves on the Downtown Eastside in terms of demands on police services, justice officials and so on.

D. Chudnovsky: No, that was a good one, just about exactly the right length.

The provincial government budget for the Willingdon centre, as I understand it, is $14 million annually. Does that include the ACT support that the minister just described as being necessary for Bill to be successful once he leaves the treatment at the centre, or is that another budget that we can find somewhere else?

Hon. G. Abbott: The projected budget for this facility in terms of operations is $14.795 million, and that includes $2.84 million for what we call transition community, which would be largely the ACT teams.

D. Chudnovsky: Now, as I understand it, there will be 100 treatment beds in the centre. Let's pretend for the sake of the discussion that 100 people come and 100 people leave at the same time. That won't be the case, of course, but over time there will be lots of people leaving. Just for the sake of the discussion.

So $2-point-something million for ongoing support, out of the $14 million. Theoretically, after those first 100 come out, there will be another 100 that come out and then another 100 and then another 100. After all, it's a five-year plan, so at least 100. Actually, it's more than 100, because as I understand it, it's a nine-month term that we're talking about for the people who are going to be provided care in this facility. Is the minister saying that there will be continued and ongoing budget…?

First of all, is $2-point-some million enough? How will that be allocated in terms of the support necessary for what the minister calls "high-acuity patients" — for when they leave? That's 100 people — $2.8 million of ongoing support. The minister described it as "daily and intensive." I don't know. I'd like to hear what that sounds like in terms of actual people on the ground providing the support.

The second question is: what happens when the second cohort arrives in the community? Is the commitment there for the resources necessary to provide the ongoing support for that group?

Hon. G. Abbott: So the member's question was: is $2.8 million going to be sufficient to manage the transition of the patients, clients of this facility? Yes, it is our belief, based on the analysis that we've done and supported by clinical expertise in this area, that it would be an appropriate figure. We believe that approximately 150 people can be supported at that level.

Like many other areas of health care delivery, we will learn from the experience. This is a new facility. This is a new model. We will be guided by the evidence and experience. If it turns out that we need $3.2 million instead of $2.8 million, then we will support that. If it turns out that we need $2.1 million instead of $2.4 million, then that will be the level as well.

Given that this is a new health care delivery enterprise, we are forming the best estimates and best judgments we can around how this will work. I know the member was just putting out sort of a hypothetical situation to elicit an answer, but in terms of how the centre will operate….

Obviously, people may come to this centre as part of a sentencing option from community court, or people may come to the centre as a result of interactions with the justice or health system or other systems and be there on that basis.

Now, depending on the particular challenges that an individual brings when they come into the centre, they may be there for six months, or they may be there for 18 months. The length is going to vary because, again, one would not want to have inappropriate discharge from the facility, obviously.

The hope is that people will be stabilized and will be able to overcome their addictions issues. In some cases they may return to their home community after discharge as opposed to returning, perhaps, from the Downtown Eastside or elsewhere. Obviously, given the investment in turning their lives around, we'll want to make sure that wherever they go, they are supported in doing so, and the ACT teams or ACT-like teams will be a part of that.

But you know, I think we've got good support and buy-in from all ministries on this, as well as from police and others, so we're optimistic that this can be a step forward. Is the model going to prove perfect first go-around? Perhaps not. But I'm sure that would never stop any member of this House from trying to build improvements notwithstanding that.

D. Chudnovsky: I want to give my colleague from Coquitlam-Maillardville a chance to ask a couple of questions, so I'm going to put two questions in one for the minister, which might save us a little bit of time.

First of all, the minister kept using the term "transition" in terms of the ongoing support. Now, the minister is talking about people who have serious medical conditions. He talks about transition, and I'm wondering whether he uses that phrase purposefully, because from my point of view, the phrase that might better be used is "ongoing supports." I want the minister to comment on that question.

Then the second question I wanted the minister to comment on is…. He anticipated the last question that I wanted to ask, which is about who will be coming to the facility? Is it anticipated that all of those who come to the facility will be coming through the community court system? Or is it the case that others will be coming in other ways? If they're coming in other ways, of course, the relationship between them and the facility is quite a different one.

I'm sorry to ask so much and so quickly. I also want to ask, respectfully, of the minister that he be quick in answering me, because the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville needs to have a chance.

Hon. G. Abbott: I can advise the member that I'm almost famous for the brevity of my comments, both in this forum and, really, any other, including question period.

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes. Very, very much associated with brevity — no question.

So to be quick, the answer to your latter question is no. There will be people who will be referred by means other than community court alternative sentencing to this facility. That's the short answer there. Hopefully, I'm not being overly brief and diminishing….

On the issue of transition versus ongoing supports, I think that within the conception of transition that we have, there are ongoing supports. The member shakes his head. I'm not sure why. Perhaps to be provocative; perhaps merely to express his disappointment at not being able to ask further questions this afternoon.

I think, to be serious about the matter, for some of the clients who are emerging from this facility post-treatment, again, they will be stabilized. Hopefully, they will be functional in society. But I don't think anyone has the expectation that they are going to be able to walk out the door and not have some ongoing supports to sustain them as they either go back to their community or they get reacquainted with their situation in some area in the Lower Mainland or whatever it may happen to be. We know that there needs to be ongoing supports. That's what the ACT teams are about.

I actually have some questions on Riverview. I'm sure that you probably assumed that already, but never assume anything — right?

I have had many calls to the office about the whole Riverview situation, as you can imagine, over the last year because it is in my riding. Lately there have been quite a few people calling who are associated with Riverview in some way or another — the Horticultural Society, the committee with the city, all the different committees — regarding the plans that were publicly announced about reopening a building at Riverview.

I'll put all my questions together in case we don't get them all answered. At least you'll be able to get the answers to my office or to me.

We're wondering which building is being looked at and what the time line is on that, because there doesn't appear to be any activity on site. Now, that may not mean there isn't any activity. So the same kind of questions my colleague was asking: who predominantly this will be for, who the beds will be for, how many people we're looking at, when you might be opening and for how long.

The five-year plan that you're referring to…. Is this plan also going to be the time line for Riverview? People are wondering, myself included, how this fits into the possible market redevelopment of the Riverview site.

I guess my last question for today would be: do you have any plans at all to do any kind of permanent, independent supportive housing on site — any new housing — for people with mental illness who could live fairly independently, with possibly just some support around, as you're referring to, meds and that kind of thing? So we're just wondering if there is market development. Is that going to be part of it, or am I being premature with my questions?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, time does fly, doesn't it? It seems like only hours ago that we sat down here to begin our debates today.

Thank you to the member for her questions about Riverview. I can only speak to the health components of the Riverview site. Some of the questions the member poses probably would be more appropriately posed to the Minister for Housing as opposed to me, but I'm glad to speak to the member in respect of the health components on the Riverview site.

Currently on the site are two quite new tertiary mental health rehab facilities. I know that they're relatively new because I was there for the opening of both of them — one, Cottonwood Lodge and the other, Connolly Lodge. Plans are in place for a third mental health tertiary rehab facility for that site.

As we were discussing earlier, the projected life span of the Burnaby centre for dual diagnosis is probably plus or minus five years, so we will be looking at the replacement of that facility. A final decision has not been made as to whether that replacement facility might be at Willingdon or Riverview. I think that's something we will have to think about strategically in terms of what the best location for that facility is.

I think in terms of the future, there are things that we need to do at Riverview. From a health perspective, we talked even earlier about some of the challenges that Vancouver Coastal Health has had in finding appropriate sites for mental health facilities. I think we have to wonder, given that the devolution has not been successful from Riverview to Vancouver Coastal, whether we should be looking at Vancouver Coastal facilities at Riverview as a kind of regional centre.

Those are some of my thoughts on that. The notion that Riverview has been abandoned, of course, is incorrect, and you know that very well from going through there. There are some outmoded facilities there, but there are also some good, new, modern facilities in the form of Cottonwood and Connolly, and we'll be looking forward at some point to details around the third.

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.