Hansard — Friday, May 23, 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		12813

Tributes		12813
	Michelle Stillwell
	R. Cantelon

Introductions by Members		12813

Tabling Documents		12813
	Elections B.C. Service Plan: 2008/09 – 2010/11

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		12813
	Korean War
	H. Bloy
	Rick Hansen Wheels in Motion
	J. Horgan
	Down Syndrome Research Foundation
	R. Lee
	HIV/AIDS
	L. Krog
	Diana Johnstone
	R. Cantelon
	Insite safe injection facility
	D. Chudnovsky

Oral Questions		12815
	Retention and recruitment of corrections officers
	M. Farnworth
	Hon. J. van Dongen
	C. Puchmayr
	Retention and recruitment of sheriffs
	L. Krog
	Hon. W. Oppal
	A. Dix
	Condition of B.C. Place roof
	N. Macdonald
	Hon. S. Hagen
	D. Chudnovsky
	S. Simpson
	H. Bains
	J. Kwan
	M. Karagianis
	Investigation into death in Maple Ridge
	M. Sather
	Hon. J. van Dongen

Committee of the Whole House		12820
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 33) (continued)
	M. Karagianis
	Hon. K. Falcon
	L. Krog
	Hon. C. Taylor
	Hon. M. Coell
	D. Chudnovsky
	Hon. S. Bond
	Protected Areas of British Columbia (Conservancies and Parks) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 38)
	D. MacKay
	Hon. B. Penner
	S. Simpson

Reporting of Bills		12829
	Protected Areas of British Columbia (Conservancies and Parks) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 38)

Third Reading of Bills		12829
	Protected Areas of British Columbia (Conservancies and Parks) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 38)

Tabling Documents		12829
	Environmental Appeal Board, annual report, 2006-2007

Committee of the Whole House		12830
	Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act (Bill 18) (continued)
	S. Simpson
	Hon. B. Penner
	G. Robertson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		12842
	Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)
	G. Gentner
	Hon. G. Abbott
	M. Farnworth
	S. Fraser
	N. Macdonald
	D. Routley
	H. Bains
	J. Brar
	M. Sather

H. Bloy: Today in the gallery are twelve veterans of the Korean War. I'd like to name them: John Bishop, Roy Borshalt, Ed Hidell, Gary Hall, Ken Hines, Philip Lee, Gary Miller, Victor Mumfort, Herb Pitts, Ray Renault, Glen Patrick and Len Desjarlais.

I wish to recognize Neil Rhodes, also a veteran, who is unable to make it today due to illness. Also in the gallery is Guy Black, who has worked hard to promote the contributions of the Korean War veterans.

Hon. M. Coell: I have two guests in the gallery today: Joe Paling, the president, and Natalie Bocking, external relations coordinator, of the Simon Fraser Student Society. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Lee: Visiting in the House today is a delegation from the Guangxi Charity Federation. We are joined by the vice-secretary general of Guangxi Charity Federation, Xiang Sheng Zhang; chairman of Lojo city, the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, Jiang Chun Ji; chairman of Lojo city, south region civil administration, Lan Jie; chairman of Woushen County civil administration, Su Jiu Li; and vice-municipal director of south region, Lojo city, Chen Wen Min.

They are accompanied by the chairman of the Cultural Regeneration Research (Worldwide) Foundation, Mr. Kenneth Tsang, chairman of the Culture Regeneration Research Society, Mr. Benjamin Li and project coordinator, CRRS (Worldwide) Foundation, Mr. William Chan.

R. Lee: I would also like to introduce a group of grade 5 students from the Our Lady of Mercy School in Burnaby. Would the House please join me in welcoming the students and their teachers Mrs. Barbara Fraser Tilley and Mrs. Linda Schubert to the Legislature.

R. Hawes: In the galleries today are two members of our excellent caucus research teams, Justin Molander and Sarah Elder. Could the House please make both of them welcome.

R. Cantelon: I'd ask the House to join me in congratulating an outstanding achievement by a constituent from Nanoose Bay. Michelle Stillwell, racing in an internationally sanctioned wheelchair event, not only won the 100 metres and 200 metres — won the gold medal — she broke records in both, absolutely crushed the 100 metres and won both events. So Beijing, look out. Here comes Michelle.

Hon. I. Chong: Although this individual has already been introduced by the member for Burquitlam, I would like to add a personal welcome to Capt. Gary Hall, a constituent of mine who for the past several years has graciously assisted me during the annual Remembrance Day ceremonies in Oak Bay, where he has accompanied me in the laying of a wreath on behalf of the province. So I ask the House to please give him a special welcome.

B. Lekstrom: It's not often that for two days in a row I have the opportunity to introduce guests from Dawson Creek, but joining us today are two special guests in the chambers. We have His Worship Mayor Calvin Kruk from Dawson Creek, as well as Duncan Redfern. Will the House please make them feel welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the Elections B.C. Service Plan: 2008/09 – 2010/11.

H. Bloy: I rise today to speak about an important event that affected our country and many others over 55 years ago, as our servicemen and servicewomen defended the people of the Republic of Korea. Hon. Speaker, 2008 marks the 55th anniversary of the Korean War ceasefire.

The Korean War lasted three years, and almost 27,000 Canadian men and women served. During this time 1,588 were wounded, and there were 516 Canadian war dead, including 36 British Columbians who gave their lives to an international campaign to stop a war of aggression.

On July 27 British Columbia will declare Korea Veterans Day in our province. By issuing this proclamation, we hope to pay tribute to our servicemen and servicewomen who brought great credit and esteem to Canada and British Columbia by their matchless courage and professionalism. It is also the goal to raise awareness of the Korean War and bring together recognitions to its veterans.

I had the honour and privilege of having lunch today with Port Moody resident Guy Black, Lt. Col. John Bishop and Victor Mumfort. I enjoyed our conversation, and they are here in the gallery now with veterans of the Korean War. Guy Black has worked tirelessly to promote the contributions of veterans of the Korean War, and I know he is proud to see this proclamation realized. It is a tribute to the veterans of British Columbia.

The Korean War has been referred to as a forgotten war and is a significant event in our history during the Cold War, but we will not and we must not forget. Today fewer than 3,000 Korean War veterans are still alive in British Columbia, and this proclamation displays that British Columbians have not forgotten the sacrifice made 55 years ago by these true Canadian heroes. [Applause.]

J. Horgan: It's been over 20 years since a young man from Williams Lake returned from the most incredible world tour ever undertaken. After two years, two months, two days, through 32 countries, over 40,000 kilometres, Rick Hansen wheeled into our hearts and minds. Spinal cord injury can happen to anyone at anytime. The impact of SCI on individuals and families is enormous, but because of Rick Hansen and his world tour, tremendous strides have been made in spinal cord research. Equally important has been the transformation in how the able-bodied address the challenges of accessibility faced by citizens in wheelchairs.

June 8 marks the sixth year of the Rick Hansen Wheels in Motion event, where Canadians from coast to coast come together to raise money and awareness for spinal cord research. Wheels in Motion is an opportunity for all of us to support the Rick Hansen Foundation and countless other organizations, like the SCI Solutions Alliance.

Since the inception of the annual Wheels in Motion day, Canadians have raised over $7.6 million. These funds have supported over 700 quality-of-life projects in communities like mine and others across this country, to provide solutions for men, women and children with spinal cord injury.

Wheels in Motion 2008 events will support quality-of-life programs that help ensure that people with SCI receive the support they need to fully participate in their communities and lead healthy, active lives.

Projects also contribute to making communities more accessible. They provide peer-support programs, equipment and assistive devices, sports and leisure activities, accessibility through community, transportation and housing improvements and many, many more initiatives.

I invite all members of this House and those watching at home to contact their local organizing committees to sign up and participate in this year's event. On June 8 you can wheel, roll, ride or walk in your local area to support research and community accessibility. The Victoria event will be held in the riding of the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head at Willows Park on the eighth, beginning at nine o'clock.

In Duncan people will be able to gather at the city square early in the day for the annual wheelchair rugby event. If you need more information — www.rickhansen.org.

R. Lee: Yesterday I had the opportunity to attend a breakfast held by the Down Syndrome Research Foundation. They provide information on many research studies and programs offered by the foundation to assist individuals with Down syndrome and their families. Down syndrome occurs approximately once in every 600 births. There are currently over 40,000 Canadians who have Down syndrome.

Located in North Burnaby the foundation operates out of a world-class clinical research building that includes a research lab equipped with western Canada's only magnetoencephalography system. Established in 1995 the foundation focuses on empowering people with Down syndrome to achieve their potential, lead independent and fulfilling lives and participate fully in their communities.

I would like to mention the founder of the Down Syndrome Research Foundation, Miss Josephine Mills. Miss Mills unfortunately passed away last week on May 19. Her vision and dedication to assisting those with Down syndrome will continue on through the development of educational and training programs, disseminating information and research results, providing clinical support services, collaborating with other resource centres and community service providers and by raising funds to support a broad spectrum of research projects.

Last Friday I also had the opportunity to participate in an announcement that will help expand the offering of the foundation and help us meet the growing needs of the local children and families. The Minister of State for Childcare announced funding for 12 new child care spaces at the foundation. The foundation is able to expand the program to 32 spaces that will help children develop a foundation of social and language skills that are required for lifelong learning and ensure successful integration and inclusion for all children taking part.

I would like to thank Dawn McKenna, the executive director, and all of the staff, researchers and supporters of the foundation for their efforts in assisting all those afflicted with Down syndrome to have a better quality of life.

L. Krog: May 18 to May 24 is Global AIDS Week of Action. It is an opportunity for activists around the world to stand together, generate political pressure and demand action from world leaders. The week starts with the International AIDS Candlelight Memorial day on May 18, when the world recognizes and remembers

those who have died of AIDS. The week of action is just two weeks before a high-level meeting at the UN discusses the progress made by every government in the fight against AIDS.

It is more than 25 years since AIDS was first identified, and yet it continues to kill 6,000 people daily around the world — 6,000 people. Two out of three HIV-positive people still lack access to treatment. Current AIDS responses do not begin to tackle the violation of women's rights, which is one of the key drivers of the epidemic. Forty million people live with HIV/AIDS every day, and close to half of those are women. Sixty percent of all new HIV infections are amongst young people aged 15 to 24.

With only two years until 2010, barely one in four people have access to HIV medicines that they need to stay alive. Worldwide only 12 percent of people who want to be tested for HIV are able to do so. Fewer than 10 percent of children affected by AIDS receive any support whatsoever. UNAIDS estimates that it requires $20 billion to $23 billion annually to deal with this issue, but current commitments suggest that, in fact, it will be something in the range of a $10 billion shortfall.

G8 nations need to lead the way. We are the wealthy part of the planet, and we know that AIDS does not recognize wealth or status or ethnicity or faith. It is a time this week to call on governments of all levels to do whatever they can to ensure that the scourge of AIDS is removed.

R. Cantelon: In every community there's usually a person that when the prestige or the pride of the community is on the line — when they're hosting, say, a big event — that this is a person you go to, to make sure it's done right.

In our community that person is Diana Johnstone. She was just recently recognized for a B.C. Community Achievement Award, and rightly so, for some of the things she's been involved with. She was executive director of the B.C. Summer Games three times; B.C. Senior Games; B.C. disabled games. She sat on the board of the Port Theatre when it was in its growing phase and a difficult phase; the City Centre Association. She serves on the Parks, Recreation and Culture Commission. She was recognized with a positive achievement award by the Economic Development Group, and she certainly is a very positive person.

Now, you might think that this would be a sergeant-major type of person. Well, quite the opposite. She's beautiful in her presence and beautiful in spirit, but she has a very sensitive way of conveying to a person a sense of urgency. She might put her hand on your wrist and say, "This has to be done" — no marching orders. She's been extremely successful.

I hope that every community has such a person. You can't have Diana, though. She's not motivated by any personal glory. But as most of these individuals are, she genuinely wants to make the community she lives in a better place, and she certainly has made a difference. Let's all congratulate her and all those movers and shakers that we all have in our communities.

D. Chudnovsky: Insite is the first supervised injection facility in North America. It's a clean, safe environment where those ill with addiction can inject their own drugs off the streets and under the supervision of nurses. Insite is supported by the city of Vancouver, the province of British Columbia, Vancouver Coastal Health, injection drug users, community groups, local businesses, academic institutions, the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition and both parties in this House.

Insite has been subject to rigorous scientific evaluation, producing over 25 peer-reviewed papers and prestigious journals. The data show that Insite is meeting its objectives, reducing public injections, reducing overdose fatalities, reducing the transmission of blood-borne infections like HIV and hepatitis C, reducing injection-related infections and improving public order.

But some insist on seeing Insite as a moral issue rather than a public health program. Insite is at risk. The federal government has yet to extend the legal exemption it needs to continue. I'm proud that there is consensus in this House about the need for and the importance of Insite.

The B.C. Nurses Union is urging British Columbians to forward a letter to the Prime Minister and the federal Minister of Health. It clearly expresses the need for Insite to continue to do its vital work of providing health care to people who need it.

I urge every member of this House to send that letter to the Prime Minister. It would be a powerful statement of our common commitment. The letter can be accessed at www.communityinsite.ca/support.

M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, a rare occasion — a question period on a Friday.

On average, provincial jails in this province are at 170 percent over capacity. The North Fraser Pretrial Centre was built for some 300 inmates. Recent numbers have put that to 667 people. In some facilities they're building huts to house the overflow.

This government closed facilities across the province, and this increase in capacity is putting tremendous stress on correctional officers across British Columbia. When is the minister going to recognize the problems that this is causing corrections officers, and when is he going to do something about it?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The government recognizes that overcrowding in prisons is not acceptable. That's why we have committed to a $185 million capital plan to

expand facilities for holding increased numbers of prisoners throughout British Columbia. That includes 135 new cells at the Fraser River Correctional Centre, 106 at the Alouette Correctional Centre for Women and an additional 20 new cells in Prince George. So there's a lot of capital plan in place right now.

M. Farnworth: I guess that capital plan is so much in place that that's why they cancelled the announcement in Kelowna.

It's not just about a capital plan. It's about the human resources that we need in our correctional facilities. The policies of this government have resulted in significant understaffing and significant stress on corrections officers in British Columbia.

In the last month alone there have been two assaults in Victoria at the Vancouver Island Regional Correctional Centre. Some 47 assaults in the last six years, and the policies of this government are only aggravating that.

When will the Solicitor General admit that the rates of violence in our jail systems are too much, and what is he going to do about it? When will he increase the number of corrections officers in British Columbia to the levels that are required to ensure safety?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Issues of safety are paramount, and we do have management and union safety committees in place that deal with those issues. The issue of recruitment and retention is a very high priority for management. We have hired increased numbers of staff in our correction facilities, and we have plans, along with the capital expansion, to hire another 93 officers as well.

M. Farnworth: Well, the ratio under this government has increased to one corrections officer to every 60 inmates. That is unacceptable. Hiring an additional 90 won't even come close to dealing with that.

Again, my question to the minister is: what specific plans does he have to address the current staff shortage regarding corrections officers in British Columbia? And how does he intend to deal with it with proposed new facilities, when clearly he's not even able to supply and staff safely the facilities that we already have?

Hon. J. van Dongen: In a competitive economy, people have choices. Certainly, people do have options as to where they can work. That's why in our ministry in the last two years we've had a very active recruitment and retention program. We hired 249 new staff in 2007, and we will continue to hire new staff as required.

C. Puchmayr: My question, too, is to the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General makes some comments about the staff that has been hired and about the retention problem that we're seeing in that field.

Wages for correctional officers in British Columbia last year were ranked ninth in Canada. They make $30,000 a year less than their federal counterparts. In 2007 alone, the year that the minister boasts about, 144 corrections officers left the system.

When will the minister take responsibility for the exodus of staff, and when will he deal with the issues of retention and recruitment that are so necessary in the system today?

Hon. J. van Dongen: In answer to the member's question, wage rates are the subject of a contract negotiation between the employer and the workers. We are following that contract in all respects. The contract makes provision for the application for a temporary market adjustment. The staff have done that on two occasions.

Hon. J. van Dongen: On one occasion management agreed to the temporary market adjustment. In my meeting with corrections staff a couple of days ago, they have indicated that they will make another application, and we will consider that, again on the basis of the terms of the agreement.

C. Puchmayr: You know, the minister claims that there are provisions. There certainly are provisions in the collective agreement that allow opening the collective agreement and that deal with those very market issues that are affecting the system today. But the minister can take action to ensure that a competitive rate is put in place so that all of Canada and the corrections officers in B.C. are paid at a rate that is competitive.

That is not happening right now. The minister needs to sit down with good faith, sit down with the associations and deal with the issue. He needs to do so before we end up with a further dangerous workplace that we're seeing there today.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm confident that my staff and my management have full knowledge of the contract. They know the issues, and they are working closely with our staff in corrections to negotiate appropriate provisions when the contract is up for negotiation and to apply the contract appropriately in between negotiations. Again, to the member, there's a proper process for doing this.

I met with the staff, so I'm informed of the issues, but it's really my management, whom I have confidence in, who manage that contract every day with our staff.

L. Krog: We're not only facing problems with correctional officers. B.C.'s sheriffs are the lowest-paid enforcement officials in Canada, and that wage gap is taking a real toll. Right now B.C. has the worst retention rates for deputy sheriffs since the service was created in 1973 by the NDP. The sheriffs collective agreement has a specific clause to deal with retention issues…

L. Krog: …to allow them to be addressed, but the Attorney General has refused to do anything to address the problem here. Will the Attorney General sit down with the sheriffs and address the problems around retention today?

Hon. W. Oppal: The sheriffs perform a very critical role in the courts. They provide security in the courts. They are a very valuable part of the criminal and the civil justice systems.

Hon. W. Oppal: We have had a retention problem. The reason for that is that the economy is booming outside, and we've had trouble retaining people. It's a problem they didn't have in the '90s, but I digress.

What's happened is that we are losing a lot of younger sheriffs to the policing profession. The policing professions are losing people as well because of a change in demographics. So this is a problem that's common throughout the justice system, where police are continually recruiting.

Hon. W. Oppal: The police are recruiting more and more members because they have a demographic problem. More and more police are retiring. The RCMP, the municipal police and the sheriffs all have the same problem, and that is that we need more people.

L. Krog: I'm delighted today. The government admits they have a big problem and they're doing nothing about it. I commend the Attorney General for his honesty in this House, but the witnesses who go into the courthouses of this province deserve to be safe. The litigants deserve to be safe, and judges deserve to be safe. The situation has reached a crisis point.

L. Krog: …that have had to be shut down because there were insufficient sheriffs available, including family court in Nanaimo, and the Attorney General well knows it. So instead of smiling about this problem, pretending it's some other issue that can't be dealt with, will the Attorney General just admit he is putting safety in the courthouses at risk? It's undermining the integrity of the system, and is he going to do something about it today?

Hon. W. Oppal: For the record, I was not smiling at the issue that we're dealing with. I was smiling at the over-the-top, exaggerated comments being made by the hon. member there.

As a matter of fact, the ministry has introduced a series of recruitment and retention activities to promote career opportunities amongst the sheriffs. There is now a $1,000 bonus program for any court services employee who can refer the ministry to a recruit. Thirteen new recruits have just graduated from the Justice Institute in New Westminster. There are 24 more that are coming on board. So it's a problem that we're aware of, and we're addressing the problem.

A. Dix: Well, 71 sheriffs have left in 14 months. His job surely is not to give laconic analysis of the problem. His job as Attorney General is to try and address the problem.

When is he going to sit down with the sheriffs and address this very serious issue of retention that is plaguing courthouses across British Columbia? When is he going to sit down with them and come to some resolution about what can be done specifically to resolve the problems that are going to affect the administration of justice everywhere in British Columbia?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, in fact, we have sat down with the sheriffs. We had a number of meetings with

the sheriffs. The member needs to do his homework. I know that's a strange concept.

Hon. W. Oppal: We've had a number of meetings with the sheriffs. The people in the ministry have had meetings. We recognize that there's a problem. We recognize that we need more sheriffs, but I can assure this House that the standards of safety in the courthouses have not been compromised.

A. Dix: He could assure us. Well, let him table the reports that say they haven't been compromised. Let him table the reviews that haven't been compromised. Seventy-one sheriffs gone in 14 months. That's one in six sheriffs in British Columbia — a loss of experience, a loss of sheriffs. It has an enormous effect on the courtroom.

So what is the Attorney General's plan? He's in charge. Surely he's aware of the issue. Surely he's in charge. Can he specifically say to us today…? He says that it's about the economy. That's what he says. Does he not acknowledge that there's a serious recruitment and retention problem when other law enforcement officials are paid enormously more than sheriffs?

Hon. W. Oppal: I don't know how many times I have to say this. We recognize that in the law enforcement area, as far as police and sheriffs are concerned, there is a problem. But I have news for the member opposite. You can't correct the problem overnight. What we have is that we've recruited people….

Hon. W. Oppal: We've recruited sheriffs. In fact, we've created an innovative program where we're now going to be paying for the training of sheriffs. That's never been done before. It certainly wasn't done in the '90s. So that's what we're doing now.

Hon. W. Oppal: We're involved with the sheriffs. We've been involved with the BCGEU. We've had a number of meetings with them. We want to work with them. We work with the judges to ensure that the security demands and the security needs of all the courthouses are met.

So we're doing our best. As I said a moment ago, the economy is strong. We're competing with other parts of the economy for people.

N. Macdonald: I have received information that the B.C. Place roof recently had a noticeable deflation and a deflation alert. Will the minister confirm that there have been recent problems with the roof of B.C. Place?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm afraid the member opposite must have found some old newspapers, because the deflation that took place was in December of '07.

N. Macdonald: PavCo has just confirmed that the alert took place. We've also been told that the roof deflation alert came on May 14, two days before the Premier and the minister held a news conference about the future of B.C. Place.

Now, I would assume that, as the minister responsible, his expectation is that he would be kept informed about anything that happens to the roof of B.C. Place, since that is the site of the opening of the Olympics and will be a venue viewed by over a billion people. So my expectation is that the minister would know about this.

Can he confirm that that roof is not dependable and that that roof is not going to be the sort of roof that we should have when the Olympics open and that the reason we cannot make a decision on that roof that is appropriate is because this minister has bungled another file and that we do not have time to make proper decisions about what should happen with the roof of B.C. Place?

Hon. S. Hagen: Let me inform the House of what was announced last Friday, a week ago. Last Friday I was pleased to be with the Premier at B.C. Place Stadium, where the Premier announced a whole new refit for B.C. Place.

Hon. S. Hagen: There was a huge crowd of people there, including the member for Surrey-Newton, who was applauding with the rest of the people.

On top of that, a retractable roof will open to the size of the football field to let in that fresh air for football games. On top of that, it was announced that the Vancouver Whitecaps will be playing their games inside of B.C. Place. On top of that, a new waterfront location for the Vancouver Art Gallery.

D. Chudnovsky: There was a deflation alert two days before the announcement. Was the minister aware of that or not?

Hon. S. Hagen: Why am I not surprised that the NDP is against the refit of B.C. Place Stadium? Why am I not surprised that the NDP is against a new Vancouver Art Gallery? I can tell you, because….

We're not going to continue. It's the minister's turn. We're going to listen to the question. We're going to listen to the answer.

Hon. S. Hagen: I was here when the NDP opposed building the original B.C. Place Stadium. I was here when the NDP opposed Expo 86. A previous NDP leader stood up in the media and said: "What happens if we throw a party and nobody comes?" Well, guess what. Some 22 million people came to Expo 86.

I was here when the NDP opposed SkyTrain. I was here when they opposed the Olympics, and they're still against the Olympics.

D. Chudnovsky: There was a deflation alert two days before the announcement. Was the minister aware of it, or was he not?

Hon. S. Hagen: I cannot believe the negativity that exudes from the other side of the House. Here's a list of the projects that the NDP have been against: Expo 86; the Expo line; SkyTrain; B.C. Place Stadium, both times; the 2010 Olympics; the Canada line; the William Bennett Bridge; Sea to Sky Highway; the new Port Mann Bridge; the South Fraser perimeter road; the Golden Ears bridge; the Pitt River Bridge; Coastal Renaissance; Coastal Inspiration; Coastal Celebration; and the Northern Adventure.

S. Simpson: …on the B.C. Place Stadium roof. Was the minister aware of that alert? Yes or no.

Hon. S. Hagen: I am pleased to inform the member and the House that that roof is inspected every day of the year, and that roof has been pronounced safe by the people who inspect it.

S. Simpson: The question that this raises is whether this minister has any grasp of his file or not. The minister should stop obstructing this House and answer the question. Was there a deflation on May 14. Yes or no? Was he aware of that? Answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Hastings, the comment that you made should be withdrawn. It's unparliamentary.

H. Bains: The minister is answering questions that haven't been asked. We are inviting….

H. Bains: The question is very simple. The minister should be on his file. The question is…. There was a deflation alert issued on May 14. Does the minister know or not?

Hon. S. Hagen: I want to apologize to the member opposite. I can't help it if I'm ahead of him all the time.

Hon. S. Hagen: I am very pleased to say that every report that's been done on that roof says that the roof is safe. The roof will last until after 2010. After 2010 we will replace the roof with a new retractable roof.

J. Kwan: PavCo has confirmed that two days ago there was a deflation alert at B.C. Place Stadium. Does the minister know of that alert, or does he not?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I've said before, that roof is inspected continuously. The roof has been pronounced safe and is certainly able to last until after 2010 opening and closing.

J. Kwan: Has the minister been made aware that there was a deflation alert two days ago at the B.C. Place Stadium roof?

Hon. S. Hagen: I have been made aware that the roof is safe, and the roof will last until after the 2010 opening and closing ceremonies. Then we'll replace it.

M. Karagianis: Two days before the government made a report, on May 14 there was an alert of a deflation of that roof. Will the minister confirm that in the House today for us, please?

Hon. S. Hagen: You know, we've heard a lot of negativity today from the other side. My question is: where does the member for Vancouver-Fairview stand with regard to the refurbishing of B.C. Place Stadium?

M. Sather: The tragic death of Karen Beck at the hands of her estranged husband in November 2007 has raised some sobering questions. There has been conflicting information with regard to Mr. Beck having held a gun to Karen's head and her having flagged down a police car after fleeing in terror. We need to do everything we can to prevent domestic violence–related deaths.

Will the Solicitor General direct the coroner's office to conduct an inquest into the death of Karen Beck?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I do want to reconfirm our government's condolences to the family. I believe that the family expresses some sincere concerns. The coroner's office, which is an independent office under the Coroners Act, is conducting an investigation. That will be a full and thorough investigation. I encourage the family to actively discuss their concerns with the coroner.

The coroner has the option under the act to call an inquest if they feel it's necessary. There will be a full, factual report to the family, to the public, including recommendations as the coroner feels are appropriate.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call, in this chamber, continued committee stage debate of Bill 33, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, and in Section A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, the continued estimates for the Ministry of Health.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 33; S. Hammell in the chair.

M. Karagianis: The minister and I were discussing section 34 at the end of the day yesterday. In looking at this issue of designated use highways, lanes and traffic control persons…. I know that the minister said that this is still a plan that's being formed.

Can the minister explain why this plan has not been completed before this? The Sea to Sky Highway has been under construction for some time. The government certainly has not been under any illusions that the Olympics were coming in 2010. Why are we planning so late in the process, and why are so many of the plans so vague?

Hon. K. Falcon: It's actually not too late at all. In fact, we're very much ahead of things in British Columbia, I'm pleased to say. In fact, I'm very proud to be part of the only jurisdiction, I believe, in history that's had all of its venues built this far in advance of the Olympics and built on schedule and on budget — something that is certainly worth celebrating.

In terms of the discussions we're having, we will have discussions not only with the Integrated Security Unit, with the policing agencies. We need to discuss with municipalities, VANOC and obviously the interested groups, chambers of commerce, etc., to make sure we get things right.

There's no particular panic. There's no pressure on us at all. The highway is still under construction. As the member well knows, it's going to be opening ahead of schedule and on budget, as have all of our major transportation projects to date — which is, again, another issue that's worth celebrating.

While that construction is going on, we are naturally engaging in these discussions. We want to make sure that we have a transportation plan that…. As we

put it together, as we understand what the security requirements are, as we understand what the needs of the community are and as we understand what the public transit issues are, all of the partners will be at the table.

We will prepare the plan. We will learn from the lessons of other jurisdictions. We will adopt our best practices. This legislation, as I said yesterday, will allow us — it enables us, in fact — to make sure that we've got the tools to translate on the ground the kinds of actions and decisions that will ensure that the transportation plan works out very well, not just for the Olympics but even post-Olympics. When we have any major events operating in the province of British Columbia, we will be able to utilize the benefits of these amendments.

M. Karagianis: I was just going back to what the minister said yesterday, which was that there was going to have to be a fair bit of work done to figure out what the likely traffic volumes would be and what the most efficient way of moving these people would be. So has none of that work been done at this point, or do you have models for traffic volumes that you are using for consultation purposes? If you're going to consult with communities and chambers of commerce, municipalities, etc., what are you using as a basis for that consultation?

Hon. K. Falcon: Certainly VANOC, the Ministry of Transportation and all the partners collectively are looking at the experience of previous Winter Olympics, whether it's Calgary or Salt Lake. They have a pretty good idea of the kinds of numbers of people that will come. The next issue then becomes: given that we expect a large influx of people into British Columbia to celebrate the 2010 Olympics, we work with our traffic engineers and with our transit — B.C. Transit, TransLink, police, etc. — to make sure we figure out the best method of utilizing the highway system to ensure that we can get people back and forth in an appropriate manner.

No doubt we'll have lots of time in the future to discuss that. That goes a little bit beyond this. But all this is saying is that we want to make sure that the ministry has the ability to designate a certain lane or lanes of a highway temporarily to allow, for example, as I mentioned yesterday, perhaps from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m., the athletes to be zipped through to their events without disruption or perhaps to allow time for members of the community to be going back and forth or whatever.

Those discussions are still underway. As I say, there are a lot of parties involved. We want to make sure we get it right, so it's not a discussion we're trying to rush forward. We've got lots of time and lots of opportunity to conclude those discussions with all the different parties.

M. Karagianis: I know that we talked a little bit about the kind of permitting that was going to take place here as well. While the plan is being formulated…. Certainly, this talks about designating the entire highway, and we've seen that this application is going to be most useful during the Olympics.

I'm very interested in how the minister perceives that this permitting process might take place. When we canvassed yesterday, the potential traffic that would want to access the Sea to Sky Highway would include athletes, would certainly include food providers, service providers, families, ticket holders, tourists that may want to use that route for other than Olympics purposes, the various communities there all along that corridor.

How does the minister perceive that the permits will apply to the designated use of this highway? How does he envision that?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think the member seems to be trying to create a situation that sounds ominous and should be something to be feared. That's not the case at all. The member would be seriously misjudging the attitude of the municipalities that are involved in this — Squamish, Whistler, Vancouver. All of them were part of the bid process. They're so excited about hosting the Olympics. The traffic management decisions are no different than what takes place today.

We have a highway under construction. It's a massive project, $600 million, that's being delivered, as I say, ahead of schedule and on budget. But during the period of time in which we're constructing those $600 million worth of improvements, there are periodic times where the highway will not be available for the public to travel.

We work with the communities. We let them know that you won't be able to travel from midnight to 3 a.m. while certain rock blasting is being done or some kind of roadwork is being done. They're well aware of it. They're very comfortable with it. It just works because we communicate, and that's what we're going to be doing as far as managing the Olympics during the two weeks that that takes place.

As I mentioned to the member yesterday, people that live in these communities also understand that there will be a lot of people visiting British Columbia during that two-week Olympic period and also, of course, in the follow-up Paralympic period. A lot of people make decisions around that. There are a lot of companies already that are making decisions on how they're going to create incentives for their employees to use transit, to arrive at work during off-peak period times, to leave during off-peak period times.

What we have seen in other Olympics that have hosted these events is there is a tremendous coming together of communities that say: "How do we make this work — not only for ourselves, but more importantly, actually, how do we make it work for the tourists and the visitors that come and want to be part of the Olympics?"

It's a positive experience, an uplifting experience, an experience that communities get involved in. What we are doing here is just making sure that we utilize, to the best efforts we possibly can, the ability to allow not only the community members to go up and down that

corridor when they need to — obviously, that right will be preserved…. We want to make sure tourists that aren't maybe visiting the Olympics but might want to visit Squamish…. Naturally, we will have allowances for them to visit tourist spots, etc., but this will be done with the active support and cooperation of the municipalities.

I just want to let the member know that so that she is not too fearful about this process. It's actually a very positive process and one in which we're enjoying our discussions. They've been positive and very supportive from all of the participants thus far.

M. Karagianis: I'm sure the minister wasn't trying to put words in my mouth, because I expect that the minister would want us to have clarity on the bill. There would be no reason in the world for him to not want to have us question the bill and not have his ability to provide clarity to the public of British Columbia on this. So I'm sure he did not mean in any way to put words in my mouth.

I know this analogy that closing the highway from midnight to 3 a.m. for blasting purposes is considerably different than trying to permit literally thousands of people to move up and down that corridor through municipalities and back again. I know the minister made reference to people taking transit or changing their work hours.

But this is not just within the metropolitan Vancouver area. This is a highway that stretches through many communities, and we expect that they'll want to continue doing business and carrying on with their daily lives despite the fact that there is an Olympic event going on.

I did ask the minister how he envisioned the permit process working. I think yesterday when we canvassed it, we were pretty unclear about the permitting. Will permits be given out by the traffic control person when the lane designation suddenly changes? Will those flag people or the police or the volunteers, as the minister has said, who will be in charge of traffic control be giving out permits and making that judgment call on each individual vehicle as it comes up the highway?

How does the minister envision that the permitting on a designated highway will work, especially during the Olympic event?

Hon. K. Falcon: As I mentioned yesterday, those are discussions that we're currently having with all the interested parties to make sure that as we build the transportation plan, we do it in a way that meets the needs of all those individuals and groups that the member mentioned.

But the member should know that this isn't the first jurisdiction ever to host a major event. In fact, British Columbia has hosted major events many times in the past. The Olympics have been hosted successfully around the world many, many times. They all run into the same issues. They have actually developed some practices that seem to work fairly effectively when it comes to moving large numbers of people to different venues and different areas, particularly Whistler.

As we develop the plan, as I mentioned yesterday to the member, we will be utilizing those best practices. We will be in full and total consultation with all the different groups. We will figure out the best way in which the permit process can work so that it's efficient and works and meets the needs of the communities, the officials, the athletes and all the others that will be involved and the security requirements.

But that's part of an ongoing discussion, so we cannot give the member definitive answers to those kinds of questions at this point when we're still engaged in the discussion process that will go on for many, many months to come as we put together a transportation plan that works.

All these amendments in the legislation do, Member, is allow the flexibility for us in British Columbia to do the kinds of things that happen in every other jurisdiction that hosts major events like this. That will give us the tools to be able to allow these events and these highways to be used in the most commonsense, efficient manner to move the largest number of people in the shortest period of time.

M. Karagianis: So the minister does not have an answer, and that's fine. I accept that. Certainly — you're right — we have hosted many events before, but this is the first time we've felt it necessary to amend the Motor Vehicle Act and designate highway use and define the ministry control over highway use. I would think this is a bit unusual, and I'm sure the minister is happy to continue to discuss the need for this change to the Motor Vehicle Act.

I do want to ask a little bit about prohibitions, though, because I know the minister talked yesterday about the fact that there certainly will need to be decisions made on how the highway is utilized.

The prohibitions. The minister talked about…. He doesn't have answers. He doesn't have answers to any of the detailed information that I'm asking here. When will we be able to see exactly what the details look like, what the permitting will look like, how wide the scope will be, how the permits will be delivered or not delivered? How can you get a permit?

If you're a tourist coming to British Columbia and suddenly discover, as you're trying to drive up the Sea to Sky Highway, that it's now a designated highway today and you don't have the right tools there to access that, how do you find out where and when and how you get those, and what kind of prohibitions will be in place? When will those details be available for the public to see?

Hon. K. Falcon: Obviously, it would be in our interest to make that information public once we complete the discussions that we're involved with, but those are important discussions. There are important security issues that have to be fleshed out. There are important access issues for members of the community,

for businesses, tourism, all those kinds of areas, and we want to make sure we get it right. I don't apologize for that.

We've got lots of time to put this together. The highway construction, as I say, is well underway now and proceeding along extraordinarily well, and the discussions that we're having…. We're partnering with VANOC in those discussions and all of the other security agencies and all of the others — B.C. Transit, TransLink and municipalities.

As soon as those discussions are completed, and we've got all of this information put together, I can assure the member that she and all members of the public will be made aware of what the transportation plans are so that we can make sure we have an Olympics in 2010 that everyone can be very, very proud of. I think that once again British Columbia will demonstrate that there is no better place in the world to host a major event, not only that but a major event that will be seen as a huge success, as I know that the 2010 Olympics will be.

M. Karagianis: The minister made reference several times yesterday to how these designations will be, not only on the Sea to Sky Highway but certainly in municipalities as well. So how are the municipal designations being made? Are they being made by the municipalities themselves at the directive of the government, or is the government simply going in and designating these corridors?

Hon. K. Falcon: It provides municipalities with the same powers with respect to their own highways and roadways to make the same and similar designations in consultation with the Ministry of Transportation, and as I say, the municipalities are part and parcel of these discussions that we're having. So this is consistent with the discussions that we're having to ensure that municipalities also will have the ability to make decisions with respect to the roadways for the benefit of large events, including the 2010 Olympics.

M. Karagianis: I take it that the minister, then, is saying, in the case of these designations, that the provincial government, the ministry, is going to give directive on where and when those will take place. You know, if the minister is going through the consultation process, obviously working with the Olympics planning structure around when and where athletes will go, ticket holders, families, food and service providers, all of that….

Is there going to be a map that sort of indicates where that is so that municipalities can anticipate that, on these given days, these corridors will be designated in part or entirely for Olympics venue use?

Hon. K. Falcon: This simply says that on any bylaws that are being adopted by municipalities that impact on provincial highways that are going through other municipalities or are on any of their local roads and that are within 800 metres of a provincial highway, approval is required by the Minister of Transportation or the designate of the Minister of Transportation, i.e., the ministry, to ensure that we're clear about what the impacts would be on the provincial highway.

It's very consistent with the kind of things that has been in place for many years. But this just anticipates, based on the discussions we have with municipalities, that if they're required to make similar types of bylaw amendments that have the effect of providing this kind of restrictions and it is on a provincial highway or it is on a roadway within 800 metres, approval by the minister is also required.

M. Karagianis: Yesterday we did talk about the costs of this change and the costs that might be implicated by designating highways, and certainly about the reference to traffic control persons.

I know that the minister has now introduced one other aspect of that, which is security. The minister did say early on that there would be no cost to this, but I know that at the closing part of our remarks yesterday, the minister did make reference to: "We will be utilizing properly trained staff, properly trained volunteers, in some cases…Ministry of Transportation expertise." Public safety would be handled by police, for example — public safety officials.

Of course, we do know that there are going to be enormous security costs, and not only at the Olympics site. One would anticipate that there will need to be some consideration of security measures along the Sea to Sky Highway, certainly, as part of the overall security plan for the Olympics. Can the minister address what the costs will be for all of those personnel?

Hon. K. Falcon: Obviously, with respect to security, there's a lot of work being done through another ministry in terms of what the security issues are going to be, so I haven't got a clue what those costs would be.

In terms of traffic control people, anytime you have a major situation, anytime you have a major construction project, you have traffic control people. Anytime you're moving major groups of people or large crowds, you're going to have traffic control people. Obviously, there is a huge, huge list of volunteers — of people that want to volunteer in the Olympics.

What I said yesterday is that those that wish to volunteer or are assigned to volunteering on crowd control will be properly trained to make sure that they understand exactly what their responsibilities are and how they are to undertake the work that they do. Obviously, we'll have MOT staff involved, as we always do with major events and undertakings, to ensure that things are going well.

But I don't know why this should be surprising at all to the member opposite. That's the way things always work when you have large events. It was no different during Expo 86. It won't be any different here. It's just a larger volume of people. As I said yesterday, there are no additional incremental costs. Those are the same costs that you will see anytime you have a large event and you've got a large number of volunteers involved — obviously, properly trained.

The police will do what the police always do. I have no idea what their costs are. That, I presume, will form part of the security cost of the Olympics, but that is another minister and ministry that deal with that.

L. Krog: Actually, hon. Chair, I was going to advise that we could, I think, move suitably through to section 60, and I have some questions for the minister on 61.

L. Krog: Section 61 adds a section to provide statutory immunity for the superintendent, individuals acting on behalf of or under his direction, etc. I am just curious to know why this section is being inserted. What's the purpose for providing statutory immunity, if you will, and if so, is it consistent with other provisions in other acts?

Hon. C. Taylor: That is exactly the reason. The person who is the superintendent of pensions is also the same person who sits in different roles, and in all those other roles, the statutory protection is there. So this is just for harmonizing it.

L. Krog: Again, for the benefit of the Chair, we could pass, I believe — unless other members are anxious to debate the issues — all the way up to section 70 inclusive.

L. Krog: Just some concerns around the abolition of the act. This, I take it, will have no effect on funding, no effect on qualifications, no effect on anything other than to basically put the administration of this under a single statute.

D. Chudnovsky: I have some questions of clarification to help understand the practical result of the changes that are being made here in section 72. So let me put this proposition to the minister and see whether I'm understanding what it says.

Is it the case that the change means that a finding of incompetence of a teacher can be made with respect to actions or activities or things that that teacher does that are separate and apart from the teaching — from what they do as a teacher? Am I correct in understanding that?

D. Chudnovsky: Right. Thank you, Chair, and thanks to you and the minister for helping us with that.

Again, do I understand correctly that the changes will mean that a finding of incompetence can be made in application to activities that take place outside of the teaching activities of the teacher?

Hon. S. Bond: The member is correct. This amendment was requested by the College of Teachers, in fact, and what it allows the college to do is consider the competence of a teacher related to an issue that may demonstrate itself or be made clear outside of their teaching capacity.

D. Chudnovsky: Thanks for that answer. This is entirely for clarification. Would I be correct in saying that as of today — that is, before this passes — the college, if it wanted to deal with such actions, would have to deal with it under the aegis of conduct unbecoming — that is, under the misconduct section of their regulations?

Hon. S. Bond: Either under that provision or they may not be able to deal with it at all. I think that is the most significant concern of the college. This may be a circumstance where a particular issue for an individual will impact their competency in the classroom, but up until this point, there are cases where they have been unable to deal with it at all.

D. Chudnovsky: Thanks for that clarification. So maybe I'll ask the question a little more narrowly. I think the minister has, in fact, answered it, but I want to ask it a little more narrowly.

If today the college wants to deal with actions of a teacher that are outside that teacher's teaching, the only provisions available to the college are the conduct unbecoming provisions. This would add to that the possibility of using the incompetence provisions. Am I correct in that?

Hon. S. Bond: I think, actually, the member's description of it is accurate. In fact, it would have to be dealt with in that way. I think the concern of the college here is that in some very unique circumstances there may be a physical or some other type of issue that occurs — if a teacher is on leave, for example, or somewhere else — and we know that it would impact them in a classroom and their ability to teach children.

L. Krog: I just want to clarify, because I need to be satisfied, myself. The behaviour, the conduct, whatever it is that's outside of the classroom, has to relate to competence in the classroom in a strict legal sense. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: I think perhaps the best way to explain this for all of us, and I think it is important to clarify it, is an example of when this might be utilized. This is one that staff has provided me to help me better walk through this.

If a college member were to, for example, suffer a brain injury when school is not in session…. There can be catastrophic results as a result of that, and there are different manifestations. Let's suggest that the member suffers from some sort of impulse control or tendency toward violence. This particular amendment would allow that, then, to be deemed incompetent, not because of what's happened in the classroom, but by an unfortunate set of circumstances for that individual which would impact their capacity.

D. Chudnovsky: Thanks to the minister for this explanation, because it really clarifies for me where this is going. I just want to ask a question about the present tense and the past tense, if I may. I don't get to do that very often anymore, so it's a good opportunity.

Were this provision to pass and become law, what is the expectation with respect to behaviours or activities prior to now? How does this provision work into the past?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, as we understand it…. Since it was requested by the college, we're also trying to think with their thinking and in the best interests of students, which I know that the member opposite spends much of his time contemplating as well.

The circumstance we could think of where that may happen is if a teacher is currently on leave because of one of these very circumstances where, previous to this, the college would be unable to actually use this particular type of criteria. So we don't see a major move to retroactivity, if that's what the member is considering. It would, perhaps, capture some who may be on leave today who have a degree of impact in the classroom, but it currently would not be caught.

D. Chudnovsky: Thanks to the minister for that answer. So far today the minister has used examples, almost entirely, of teachers on leave. I understand that. I'm not here to argue about that. I'm here to probe beyond that.

We could be talking about teachers on leave. I think that I understand very clearly what's being said, and I see the justification for it. You know, we'll decide whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. But what about people who aren't on leave? What about the weekend? Having given the examples of people on leave, is the minister excluding other situations, or are there other situations as well?

Hon. S. Bond: One of the things we want to be really clear to differentiate is that this is not about conduct. I think that's a way of differentiating it, and maybe I didn't react to that early enough in this discussion. This amendment would allow the College of Teachers the flexibility it needs to deal with matters of competence that arise outside of the employee's capacity as a teacher. Maybe that's a better way to describe it. But it is not about conduct, and I think that's an important differentiation.

The Chair: Members, the committee deferred sections 14 to 28 yesterday. Is the committee ready to consider these sections, or shall they be considered at the next sitting of the House?

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

Hon. R. Thorpe: I call Bill 38, the Protected Areas of British Columbia (Conservancies and Parks) Amendment Act, 2008.

PROTECTED AREAS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
(CONSERVANCIES AND PARKS)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 38; S. Hammell in the chair.

D. MacKay: Section 1 talks about modifying "a not-in-force amendment to the description" of a Nisga'a area "consequential to an amendment to the description of the same park by this Bill." Can you tell me: is

this actually increasing the size of the area or decreasing the size of the area or leaving it the same?

Hon. B. Penner: My notes indicate that the net result will be the removal of less than one hectare from the park in order to accommodate construction of a new road to the community of New Aiyansh. It's 0.0858 hectares, if anyone is keeping track.

Hon. B. Penner: I move the amendment to section 8 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

S. Simpson: I'll ask these questions as it relates to one of the conservancies covered in section 9, because it covers a couple of items, and I'll ask a couple of other questions on schedule F.

We know that there are a number of conservancies that currently have private power projects proposed for them. They have environmental assessments that are proceeding. That would be true in the Klinaklini, the Europa, the Cascade-Sutslem and a couple that are already there.

I'll ask it within the context of this question where Europa conservancy is listed. Could the minister tell us: if this passes, what will the status be of those assessments in terms of the need to put power lines or other activities through the scheduled conservancies?

Hon. B. Penner: My understanding is that once these sections come into effect and the legislation has passed, the proponents will have to make a decision about whether they want to continue to pursue an environmental assessment review or not. That will be a decision, I think, that will be left to them.

As the member will know, a number of first nations and others have made proposals, as the member has noted, for Europa but also, I think, for one or two other conservancies as well. They'll have to make a decision at this point whether they want to down tools or continue on with an environmental assessment.

What this legislation does is put in place the boundaries that were announced back in February 2006 by the Premier and first nations, local communities and environmental groups.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the answer of the minister, so just a bit of a further affirmation. I think that I've got it from his answer.

It would be the position of the minister that once this legislation passes or is adopted by the House, these are the boundaries. As such, they wouldn't be compromised for activities that were outside of what's allowable under those schedules — unless, of course, there was the boundary adjustment process, which would need to be brought at some further time through legislation. Would that be correct?

S. Simpson: I just have a couple of questions in relation to section 11, particularly around the Klinaklini conservancy, which is included in schedule F.

The minister will know that of all the schedules there, this is the one that probably has the most flexibility in terms of allowing activities to go on around road development and other activities related to resource exploitation, resource extraction, etc. Of course, there is an IPP proposal there as well.

We also know that this was one of the conservancies — it's about 37,000 hectares or so, I believe — that as part of the negotiation process was actually pared down a little bit in terms of its size. That's fine. The question I have around this is: why was the decision made to put Klinaklini in schedule F?

Hon. B. Penner: Apparently, the proper legal name proposed for the conservancy to which the member refers is Dzawadi/Upper Klinaklini River conservancy. The member is close in his estimation of the size of the proposed conservancy. This legislation proposes that it's 39,303 hectares in size.

The member's question is: why is this particular conservancy proposed to be included in schedule F? The reason for this is that if it were not in schedule F, it would have the effect of blocking access to all the valleys and tributaries to the main valley of the Klinaklini River, which is an area….

I'll just repeat that. If this conservancy were not in this particular schedule, then the effect would be to block access to all the valleys and tributaries to the main valley of the Klinaklini River, which is an area of approximately 185,000 hectares. In effect, this would increase the protected area size by 154,000 hectares, or 4.9 times the actual area agreed upon. That was not the direction of the LRMP process, the land and resource management plan process, that was recommended to government. The recommended area was the 39,303 hectares.

S. Simpson: If I understand correctly, this was primarily an issue of access to this much larger area that is outside the protected areas and didn't involve other values, necessarily, within that conservancy, but it was to provide some assurance for roadways or road rights-of-way for that.

Could the minister tell us: if that's the case, why wasn't the decision made to provide a road allowance and protect the rest of it with a designated road allowance? The reason I ask this question is…. Certainly, the concern that I've had raised to me around this area is that there is a variety of other activities allowable under the schedule that people are concerned may be contemplated here — other than the question, necessarily, of road access into another area and, as the minister says, not wanting to essentially protect another area by stealth, of sorts.

Why wasn't there a decision made to provide for a road right-of-way and provide the additional protection for the other space?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm not sure if the member is familiar with the topography or geography of the proposed conservancy, but I've got a little map here. We're not supposed to use props, so I won't, Madam Chair.

If the member looks at this, you'll see that the intended protected area as sketched or as coloured onto the map almost resembles a starfish in terms of its configuration. We don't know with any certainty in which direction people may wish to travel or wish to have access to, in terms of obtaining resources or having some kind of other economic activity in the area. That would, of course, be outside of the conservancy on the other side of the boundaries.

We would have had to know with certainty exactly where people were hoping to someday build an access road, in terms of its physical alignment. That can only be known through detailed survey work, and engineers, I guess, would have to be involved to determine where the appropriate place would be to build the road.

By placing this particular conservancy in schedule F, it does allow the government to issue — if it's considered appropriate — a park use permit to authorize the construction of an access road to lands and resources outside of the conservancy.

But again, if the member looks at the map of that particular conservancy, it's not entirely clear in which direction somebody may wish to go. There are multiple different valleys feeding off of this particular area.

S. Simpson: I would agree with the minister. I have seen the map, and it's a very unique boundary. There's no doubt about that.

Just a question to the minister. If the purpose of including this particular conservancy in schedule F is to ensure that without further challenges, there is the ability to build a road or two roads or whatever is being contemplated here to be able to access those other areas….

Would it be a consideration or intention of the minister and the government, at the time that those determinations are made as to what that alignment might look like…? What may the government want to do in terms of road alignments sometime in the, hopefully, not too distant future as decisions are made about what to do or not with access?

If those decisions are made and the road is built, would there be any reason, then, not to provide the additional protections to that particular conservancy after the roads are in place by moving it to another schedule with an acknowledgment of those road rights-of-way? Is that something that is a possible or doable thing?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that what the member is discussing is conceivable. It has been the practice of the ministry and B.C. Parks, once there is certainty, to make those kinds of conversions in terms of what shows up in different schedules. But I suspect that in this area, it will be several years before there is sufficient certainty to know exactly what the first nations in the area might have in mind in terms of possible access. That is an idea we actually do adopt when the time is right.

S. Simpson: One last question on this matter. Accepting that it will take some time before decisions can be made by the parties that need to be part of that discussion as to what those access issues might be and how they will be dealt with….

Is it the intention at this time that other than access questions, the other uses that might be allowable under schedule F, which aren't allowable necessarily under other schedules, are not going to be contemplated by the government?

In terms of use, I accept the minister's position that this is being done to deal with a potential complication around access. The other things that might be allowed under schedule F are not being contemplated by the government, other than addressing the access questions. I think about some of the resource issues that are potential in this area.

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that there's only one difference between schedule E and schedule F conservancy, and that does pertain to the possibility under

schedule F for B.C. Parks to issue a park use permit for the construction of an access road. But other than that, I'm told that there are no differences between a schedule E and schedule F conservancy.

D. MacKay: Just a point of clarification from the minister. I noticed that under section 9 on page 13 of the bill, it talks about the Khutzeymateen Inlet Conservancy, and then we go to section 11 on page 20, and it talks about the Khutzeymateen Inlet West Conservancy. I just wondered why it was necessary to…. We're talking about the same conservancy, except one has got the term "west" included in it.

Why was it necessary to go from schedule E for the Khutzeymateen Inlet Conservancy to section F for the Khutzeymateen Inlet West Conservancy? Why the separation? Are they not contiguous?

Hon. B. Penner: The answer to the member's question is not dissimilar to the topic I was just discussing with the member for Vancouver-Hastings. There is apparently a need for an access corridor, an access route in the conservancy, and B.C. Parks was able to determine, in this case and with relative confidence, the general area where such an access road may be contemplated.

That's the area that's designated for schedule F in terms of the conservancy designation. The remainder is intended to be in schedule E.

S. Simpson: Under the commencement section a significant number — sections 5, 7 and 9 to 11 — are not to come into force at royal assent but are to come in at a later time by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or of cabinet. Could the minister tell us why those sections are being held back?

Hon. B. Penner: There are a couple of different things here. The new parks and conservancies are coming into force by regulation for a number of reasons. First, there are some mineral tenures that need to be expropriated from a number of the conservancies. The note I have here is that some expropriation letters and notices need to be prepared. Those will be done upon passage of the legislation, but they need to be prepared.

Second, there's…. Sorry, I'm just getting distracted by the conversation around me. The ministry needs to undertake further consultation with first nations governments respecting the establishment of a number of conservancies and park additions where, in some cases, there is not unanimous agreement about just where those boundaries should be drawn. We're not intending at this time to change those boundaries, but we do feel it's prudent to have further discussions with some of the first nations in the affected areas.

Third, the member is likely aware that there are a couple of conservancies in the Sea to Sky land and resource management planning area where there was lack of unanimity, as well, amongst first nations about the name or names to be given to two of the proposed conservancies. This gives some time to have those issues resolved.

S. Simpson: My apologies to the minister on this. I got the first part of the answer and the last part, but I must admit I wasn't able to quite hear the other part. I was overcome by other noise in the chamber. I believe the minister gave three responses. The one in the middle I wasn't quite able to hear. I'd appreciate it if the minister could maybe repeat that.

The Chair: Members, it's difficult for the minister and member to hear, and also the Chair. If you could keep your conversation down, please.

The ministry wants to conduct some additional consultation with some of the first nations in the areas where some of the new conservancies are taking place and some park additions are proposed to take place. There's a situation where there's not complete unequivocal support from all of the local first nations, so the ministry believes it's prudent to undertake some further discussions and consultations.

S. Simpson: I certainly understand the comments the minister made about possible name changes to satisfy some concerns around names, and I think that's quite appropriate if a more appropriate naming of the conservancies is identified that people are happy with.

The question I have in regard to this is: is it possible that these negotiations or consultations could lead to a change of the boundaries in any of those areas?

Hon. B. Penner: If this bill is passed as presently worded and described, it would take a subsequent act of the Legislature to amend any of the boundaries as currently proposed.

S. Simpson: If my understanding of the minister's comment is correct, and I believe it is, then once Bill 38 is adopted, essentially there can be no changes. However, would it be correct that the boundaries or the areas that are in question would essentially have the status that they have today and not as protected areas or conservancies until such time as it's brought into force by regulation by cabinet?

Does it have whatever the status is today, or does it actually have a protected status, though it's not been brought into force? The concern is, as I'm sure the minister appreciates, that while it might not mean a change to what's in Bill 38, Bill 38 may not actually apply until

Hon. B. Penner: I believe the member is technically correct, but what the member may or may not know is that since the announcement back in February 2006, other government permitting agencies have taken notice of what government's intention is with respect to those areas.

For example, I don't believe the Ministry of Forests would have issued any cutting permits or made any award of harvesting rights in the areas that are proposed under the agreed-to midcoast and north coast land and resource management plans. My expectation would be that there would not be any permits granted while we're conducting further consultations with the first nations and the affected areas.

According to my notes, if I'm adding this up right, there's something in the order of six new conservancies that may fall into that category where we want to have some additional consultations with first nations with respect to the conservancies themselves. There are another two where we've got the issue about the naming of the respective conservancies. I'm being told that there may be some additional ones, too, in a different section of the act that I didn't catch immediately.

In any event, it is the government's desire to have these areas proclaimed into force — and I think the deadline is the end of June — so that we meet the objective that was established back in February 2006, which is to meet the requirements for what's referred to as the CIII funding. That's the $60 million contribution, I think, from various foundations.

The provincial government has made a commitment of topping it up with $30 million. The federal government has matched us in terms of another $30 million, and a certain quantum of land has to be set aside — I believe it's by June 30, 2008 — in order for that funding arrangement to kick in, for the conditions to be met.

S. Simpson: Just so I can be clear. I appreciate that the minister is saying that the government is moving forward on a commitment, and I know that the Minister of Agriculture and Lands affirmed that commitment — that the boundaries would be the 2006 boundaries that were agreed to. I certainly know, from discussions with people who are keenly aware of those boundaries, that the boundaries are essentially the boundaries that were agreed to. So that's not at all in question.

Now, though, as the minister says, technically…. This is maybe a two-part question. It'll move us along. Technically, changes could occur. I accept the minister's word that that's not the intention, but technically, they could occur. Could the minister confirm that?

The second is: can the minister confirm that the intention, or at least the aspiration, is to be able to in fact bring sections 5, 7, 9 and 11 into force by the end of June?

Hon. B. Penner: The member's premise is correct. It would take an act of the Legislature again, once this is passed, to amend the boundaries that are contained herein.

The second part of my answer is that it's the government's desire and objective to have these conservancies established by June 30. We anticipate that it might take longer than that for the issue to be resolved around the names of the two Sea to Sky conservancies, but we are going to continue to work on that as well.

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

PROTECTED AREAS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
(CONSERVANCIES AND PARKS)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Bill 38, Protected Areas of British Columbia (Conservancies and Parks) Amendment Act, 2008, reported complete with amendment.

PROTECTED AREAS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
(CONSERVANCIES AND PARKS)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Bill 38, Protected Areas of British Columbia (Conservancies and Parks) Amendment Act, 2008, read a third time and passed.

Hon. B. Penner: I beg leave to present the 2006-2007 annual report of the Environmental Appeal Board.

I now call committee stage on Bill 18, Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act.

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

S. Simpson: It's good to be back on this bill. Where we left off, I think, is we were discussing some of the definitions in the bill. We had just been down discussing those matters related to B.C. allowance units and B.C. emission reduction units. I believe I had been asking questions about the emission reduction units.

Could the minister tell us how he anticipates the offset credits being valued or being used? How is it going to be determined what the value and volume of those credits are and how they're in fact going to be used?

Hon. B. Penner: As is consistent with the concept behind a cap-and-trade system, the value of the B.C. emission reduction units will be determined by the market — by market forces and by trading activity. So I don't know what that price ultimately will be. That will have to be determined by the market.

In terms of how they can be used or for what they'll be used, they'll be used in accordance with the provisions outlined in the act and any regulations to follow. But they are intended to allow companies to help meet their reduction requirements through the acquisition of these legitimate offsets, which would have to be verifiable and incremental — that is, attaining reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that are in addition to something else that otherwise would have happened.

S. Simpson: I recognize that there is not certainty about what limits there might be on these units as we determine what they are. I do note that when I look at the WCI draft design recommendations on elements of the cap-and-trade program around the quantity limits for credits, it discusses ensuring that meaningful emission reductions take place within the sources covered by the cap-and-trade system.

I think that is a positive recommendation. What I hear that suggesting to me is a recognition by the people who put the recommendations together that the purpose of offsets or credits is not to supplant the actual reduction of emissions and that that shouldn't be the purpose under a cap-and-trade-system.

The question I have in terms of those units I will ask here. It may be that we'll end up asking it more appropriately in another area. Is there an expectation with those units as defined that they will have limits put on them not just in terms of the number but in terms of how they can be used so that they don't just become a cost of doing business?

Hon. B. Penner: If the member is correct, there is a draft document with some recommendations that have been put out for discussion purposes. That was released on Wednesday through the western climate initiative at a meeting held in Salt Lake City, Utah. Unfortunately, I was not able to attend as I had some commitments here, as did the member.

However, I'm told that more than 300 people participated either in person or through what's referred to as a webinar process — watching things through the Internet and via teleconference. There has been widespread interest in that meeting. That's good to see, because the whole purpose of releasing the draft recommendations is to stimulate public comment and discussion and to get some comments back from people for the various members of WCI to consider.

If you look ahead in the bill to section 39, you'll see that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can make regulations pertaining to how the B.C. emission reduction units can be used and applied. The idea, as I've said, is to attain additional incremental greenhouse gas emission reductions through offset projects. What incremental means is that those are emission reductions that would not otherwise have taken place.

With respect to the member's comment about it not just becoming a cost of doing business, actually, the whole idea behind putting a price on carbon either through a carbon tax — as we're doing with the revenue-neutral carbon tax — or through a cap-and-trade system is to put a price and a cost on business for the carbon emissions that they generate and allow to go into the atmosphere.

By putting a cap in place on the total amount that will be permitted into the atmosphere in British Columbia, that obviously imposes a cost on business. Then they have to make a decision on whether it's most cost-effective for them, from a business perspective, to meet their legal obligations to operate within the set allowances either by reducing their own emissions or by purchasing credits from other companies that have more than sufficiently reduced their emissions or, thirdly, by acquiring these B.C. emission reduction units.

They'll have to make a business decision on what makes the most sense for them, but that's what makes a cap-and-trade system a market model. Businesses have to make a decision about how best to proceed in the most economic way. But from the environment's perspective and the atmosphere's perspective, the end result is lower greenhouse gas emissions — whether those come about through verifiable and incremental offset projects or through reductions at source from a particular company's facility.

S. Simpson: Hon. Chair, I appreciate the minister's comments that emissions pricing is about putting a price on carbon, whether it be the tax or to some degree

through a cap-and-trade system, though I believe the cap-and-trade system is somewhat different.

That may be a tool, but it's clearly not our objective. The objective here isn't the price on carbon. The objective here has to be the reduction in emissions. That's got to be the goal. That's where we're going.

I certainly know that when we view this, the measure we see as the measure of importance is: how do we reduce emissions? If putting a price on carbon simply creates a situation where people are prepared to pay and continue to emit, then it's not working. If they are in fact changing behaviour and reducing emissions, then it's working. That's probably why we're of the view that a little bit more emphasis on a regulatory regime will be important in the long run.

Having said that, the reason I'm referencing back to the WCI draft design recommendations — and I certainly appreciate that we have a ways to go before those are finalized and before the cabinet and the Premier make decisions about when and how we will proceed with those — is that at this point they give us the only insights or the only place that we can open that discussion with a piece of legislation that is largely a blank cheque, as the minister said when he referenced sections in the bill where regulations will make all of these decisions. Part of our criticism of this bill is that it creates a bit of a blank cheque in terms of the ability of government to deal with these things.

That's part of the reason that I'm looking to have some discussion with the minister, and I'll look to have some significant discussion over all these issues in the bill as we lead through here. As the minister said, he is hoping for, and I'm pleased to hear the minister say that he's looking for some dialogue and discussion around the recommendations from the WCI.

I believe that is important, and I'm hopeful that it will be a vigorous discussion. But I think an important part of that discussion may be what we talk about here in this House in relation to Bill 18, to see if we can garner some insights from the minister about what his thinking or the government's thinking might be about the directions that they will be supportive of in terms of the WCI.

I'll tell the minister now that I'm going to try to encourage him to provide those insights so that people in British Columbia do have the opportunity, when they look at these recommendations, to have some idea about the people who actually will make the decision and what they're thinking. Then based on that, they can make a determination about whether they want to advise the government that they should be thinking something else.

Based on that, just to provide that bit of a preamble, I'll go back to the question around the offset units themselves. Is it the government's position that this is solely about pricing and that if people are prepared to pay the price, including buying the offsets, then that's an acceptable thing for them to do? Or is it about putting some limits not just on the allowance units but on the offset or reduction units, as well, and conditions or protocols on those units — to put some limits on their use so that they don't become a blank cheque for people to use them to buy their way out of reducing emissions?

Hon. B. Penner: I think the member's comments betray a certain lack of understanding about what a cap-and-trade system is and how it operates. So I'll spend a little bit of time here just to review the concept.

First, just turning to a news release that we released when we introduced this legislation on April 3, I'll just quote from that for a moment:

I'll say that again. "These units must then be surrendered to the government as proof of compliance." So the member is focusing on one part of the phrase "cap-and-trade." He's talking about the trade component and forgetting about the cap. The government intends, through this legislation, to impose a cap on industrial emissions and then, over time, to drive down the allowable cap.

If you don't want to take our word for it, this document was distributed last week by representatives of the Suzuki Foundation and the Pembina Institute when they held a news conference here in Victoria to talk about their support for a cap-and-trade system. I'll just quote from this document:

Then on the back panel of the document it says "Cap and Trade Around the World" — that's the heading.

It goes on to note that the system currently covers 27 countries and is just entering its second phase. So the overall result is a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

I'm not sure why the member would be hostile or critical about the idea of having people invest in British Columbia offsets if it results in new technology being invested in, in British Columbia and new technological advancements being made and, at the same time, results in a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Keep in mind what I've said all along: these offsets, in order to be eligible, will have to be verifiable and incremental. That means in addition to reductions that otherwise would have taken place. Again, the net result is that at the end of the day total greenhouse gas emissions go down under a cap-and-trade system.

S. Simpson: I think I have a pretty good handle on what a cap-and-trade system is. I happen to have read that document from Pembina and Suzuki and have had extensive discussions with them around that document and around their position in regard to cap-and-trade.

If the minister wanted to stand up here today and embrace the principles that were in that document — around auctions, around threshold levels, around scope, around a cap value that takes us down to a 33 percent reduction by 2020 and, as he seemed to miss mentioning, around putting limits on the offsets program, which was also recommended by Suzuki and Pembina — then we probably could shorten this conversation up.

But none of that is committed to in any way, shape or form in this bill. There is not one single commitment in this bill for any of those things to occur. So we will have an ongoing discussion about this.

The minister talks about reducing emissions by cap, and that's important. One of the things that Pembina and Suzuki recommend…. I'd be interested to have the minister's comment on this, since we're talking about the impact of offsets. They have stated that the reduction in emission levels should come down to a 33 percent reduction through the cap-and-trade program by 2020, as per the Premier's commitment and the commitment that we legislated last session.

To do that and have real emissions reductions would mean putting limits on emission reduction units to not allow people to buy their way out of this. It's not about saying no to offsets. It's about being very judicious in the use of offsets so that it doesn't just become a matter of money and this doesn't just become an incredibly valuable wealth generator, because that's what cap-and-trade has the ability to do. It has the ability to end up being all about money and not at all about emission reductions.

It has that possibility. We've seen that happen in other jurisdictions. I'm sure the minister doesn't want that to occur here, and we don't want it to occur here either.

So when the minister talks about emission reduction units, is it the intention to put some limits on those units in terms of the number of units, how they can be used and what they can be used for? And when is that going to become apparent?

Hon. B. Penner: I'll just note for the member that last fall we passed Bill 44. That sets a legal requirement for British Columbia to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 33 percent by 2020. That is certainly something we are committed to doing, and we're endeavouring to do it. In the meantime, we are consulting and discussing with stakeholders and environmental groups and others, including the member, about how best to attain that overall goal.

One of the ways of doing that that we've proposed is through a cap-and-trade system. I know the opposition voted against that on principle at second reading, but we support the concept of cap-and-trade as one of the tools to reach our 33 percent reduction target.

The draft recommendations that were released in Salt Lake City on May 16 — that's just two days ago — are specifically intended to foster dialogue and discussion. That's why we certainly welcome the document from the Pembina Institute. We met with a representative of the Suzuki Foundation, Ian Bruce, and I understand that he had some favourable things to say after he saw the recommendations coming out of Salt Lake City in terms of some of the ideas that are contained in that. We look forward to having further dialogue with him and others. That's the whole point.

The member has said: "Why doesn't the government come out with a predetermined idea about exactly what we will do in terms of this cap-and-trade system?" Well, we're part of the WCI process. We're having discussions with our other member jurisdictions within the WCI. We will get to that point, but first we want to hear what people have to say in response to the recommendations that were released just two days ago. I'm sure the e-mails, cards and letters with people expressing their views will be coming in, and we'll take all of that into account.

S. Simpson: I'll make a comment on this, and I'll move on, because we are going to have a lot of discussion about this in a few pages.

I believe that it's true that British Columbians might want to talk about this, but I know that British Columbians aren't particularly enamoured with this bill, not because they don't support a cap-and-trade system but because the legislation tells them absolutely nothing about what a cap-and-trade system will look like in British Columbia. I also believe that British Columbians do want to be engaged in that discussion.

I've had discussions with Mr. Bruce and with others who are involved in and monitoring Salt Lake. I think that there is a significant amount of interest in the draft design recommendations, and a number of those recommendations are very helpful and make good sense. I think that the framework…. I will say right at the outset that probably the WCI recommendations have gone further in many places than I thought they would, and I think that we should be happy about that.

But what British Columbians would like…. The minister will reflect back. We discussed this with another piece of legislation. We talked about the Wildlife Act review. The minister will know that he released a document that didn't firmly commit the government to anything. That's apparent from the legislation that came. But it certainly talked about ideas that the government thought were important. It talked about some of them in detail and others in a broader sense, without committing the government at all.

The government now has a series of recommendations here. I am sure that British Columbians would love to have some idea about what the government thinks about what's in this document and whether it's heading in the direction they want to go.

For example, in the auction area, it says that we should auction somewhere between 25 to 75 percent. I'm sure that British Columbians would love to know whether the government thinks it should be at the lower end or the higher end of that auction or not auctioned at all. That would be important information so the government could get real feedback from people when they had some idea of what to give feedback about. But that's the end of that conversation for the moment.

Moving on, the next of the definitions is "cap." It's the maximum number of allowance units that may be made available for a particular compliance period. I believe that the minister indicated this. Is it the intention, on the cap, for the government to come in at a level that presumably doesn't…? Is it the position of the government that the initial cap should be at or below the total emissions that are being released today?

Hon. B. Penner: Just to respond to what the member said in the preamble to his last question, we want to know what British Columbians, stakeholders, environmental groups and industry are thinking about in terms of the design of the cap-and-trade system. Anyone who wants to contribute comments is more than welcome to do so. We look forward to receiving those either through e-mail or a request for meetings or what have you, or through people registering on line through the Internet. They, too, can be taking part in these discussions with the western climate initiative itself.

I know that quite a number of people did do that. More than 350 participated through the western climate initiative meeting that took place in Salt Lake City. Sorry, I was mistaken. I said May 16. It was actually on May 21. That's how time flies around here when we're having fun. It was two days ago, and that was May 21, not May 16, when that meeting took place.

In terms of the caps and what level the caps will be placed at, we're looking to see what has taken place in other jurisdictions such as Europe, where they've had a cap-and-trade system already for some time, as I've already alluded to.

Most economists and advisers will suggest that you want to phase in a cap-and-trade system so that the bite becomes progressively more aggressive over time. That gives industry time to adjust and to start to ratchet down those emissions, just as we're doing with our revenue-neutral carbon tax. It starts at a very modest amount, $10 per tonne of carbon dioxide, but we're signalling over time that industry and individuals can expect that that amount will go up.

That sends a signal to people as they are making their future investment decisions — whether it's about purchasing an automobile or purchasing a different home or looking to insulate their home — that they need to take into account that the cost of their emissions is going to go up.

Similarly, with a cap-and-trade system what you want to do is clearly signal that the cost of emissions is going to be going up so that industry needs to take those future costs into account when they're making their investment decisions and then invest in ways to reduce their emissions. So we are working with our partners in the western climate initiative, which includes California, Oregon, Washington, Manitoba and Quebec, and I was pleased to hear that Ontario had observer status at Salt Lake City. They're apparently watching things very closely.

Certainly, from British Columbia's perspective, we welcome other Canadian provinces joining the WCI. We'd be very pleased if Ontario does decide to join the organization, even if eventually, some day, some people will suggest that the organization needs to change its name due to the different locations that are joining the initiative.

What's more important than the name is the overall premise, which is that we're all working collaboratively to find the most cost-effective way possible of reducing greenhouse gas emissions so that we're doing something that's good for the environment and also maintaining a strong economic foundation to pay for all the social services and programs that government here provides.

S. Simpson: The question I raise about the definition on the cap is this. The minister talked about the European model, and certainly the minister knows that the first time they did this in Europe they messed it up. The way they messed it up is that they ended up allocating more what would be allowance units in this legislation than there were actual real emissions, something in the range of about 15 percent over the actual emissions in Europe. That, to some degree, comes from the way they determined levels of emissions. We'll have that discussion in a while too, I'm sure.

But what happened, of course, is that once that was done, they essentially created a circumstance where the companies that were covered by cap-and-trade were able to emit more the day after cap-and-trade came into

place than they were actually, in reality, emitting the day before. That became a problem for the market aspects of this system. They've corrected that now, as I understand. They've pulled back and made a correction, and that's a good thing.

The question I have is: at the time that this is going to come into force…. I appreciate we don't exactly know when that is, because we don't exactly know when the WCI will actually come into force. There's some flexibility there.

The question I'm asking is: will there be a commitment made that the cap number, the overall cap number, will not be greater than the amount of emissions of the industries or organizations that are captured under cap-and-trade? Is that a commitment that the minister can make — that we're not going to allow them to start emitting more the day after than they are, in reality, emitting the day before?

Hon. B. Penner: In fact, we had representatives from the climate action secretariat in Europe this week. There was a meeting held of the International Carbon Action Partnership in Brussels, and we had active participation there to learn from the European experience.

I'm assured that the European Union did not intentionally set out to issue more allocations than companies actually required. What happened was that they did not have as detailed measurements as to what actual greenhouse gas emissions were occurring from the various industries as perhaps they could have or would have liked to have had. Now, in phase 2 they've got better data, and they have revised their scheme.

We are certainly learning from the programs or the efforts that have taken place in other jurisdictions, and that's why we are proud to be a member of ICAP, the International Carbon Action Partnership. That's why we had a representative in Brussels this week, on Tuesday and Wednesday, to participate in those meetings and to hear firsthand about their experiences.

I am advised that we have much better data today in British Columbia and in Canada about our actual emissions than the European Union did when they launched their cap-and-trade system in the 1990s, so we're in a better position in terms of a starting point.

Just by way of reference, for example, Environment Canada collects an inventory of data across the country. They monitor greenhouse gas emissions, and they put out reports annually. The most recent year's data has just been made available for 2006. That's the most recent year that they have complete data for, and it indicates that in the case of British Columbia, our greenhouse gas emissions went down 3.2 percent from the year 2005 to the year 2006. That's encouraging, but it hardly means that we have to stop work. In fact, I think we have to keep up the effort and maintain progress.

Again, according to the data just released by Environment Canada, our most recent 3.2 percent year-over-year decline followed a decline of 1.8 percent from the year 2004 to 2005. So for the two most recent years for which we have data provided to us by Environment Canada, British Columbia's overall greenhouse gas emissions have come down 5 percent, which is progress.

I'm not going to pretend that the work is over, that the job is done. We have much, much more work to do, and we intend to do it.

S. Simpson: I would agree, certainly, from what I have read and from people I have talked to who have some knowledge of the European model, that they have fixed it to some degree. They hope they have, and I think they've made good progress — that's everything that I hear — in fixing it, in terms of the error that was made.

The error that was made, interestingly…. The comment has been made to me, by people who have paid much closer attention to that, is that the European Union essentially went to the industries in play, discussed with them their emission levels and, in large part, took the advice of industry as to what their emissions levels would be. As was reasonably expected — and I don't begrudge them this — those industries all put their levels at the highest possible end of the range that they could. Then that was what was accepted, and of course it ended up that the cumulative impact of that was somewhat significantly over the real emissions.

If I was to provide a piece of advice to the minister on this — the minister said he was consulting everybody, including me, so I'll give him my advice — it is that the industry stewardship model that the government uses for many of its other practices and, certainly, for its practices within Environment…. The minister might want to take a second look at the industry stewardship model and whether that's the one he wants to rely on when he starts looking to get emission levels from those industries. Maybe he might want to invest a little money in having that done independently.

I'm going to move on, because I want to get to the interesting stuff, which starts in part 2. But we're not quite to part 2 yet. It talks here about inspectors in the definitions, and it says: "a person designated as an inspector under the regulations or a person in a class designated as inspectors…." It also identifies a conservation officer as an inspector.

Is it the intention of the ministry to have inspectors over and above conservation officers?

Hon. B. Penner: Just to address the first part of the member's comments about making sure he got accurate baseline data about an individual industry or business's greenhouse gas emissions profile. If you flip ahead to section 4, which I know we're not at yet…. But if you look at section 4, it deals with emissions reports. It does give legal authority for the director to order an audit to take place or to conduct an audit of the actual results or the emissions that would be coming from a company or a business.

Certainly, as we've initiated dialogue with our partners in the WCI, we're in agreement with folks — for example, from the Governor's office in California — that we have to make sure we have good data. We are

all learning from the experience of others who've gone on before us, such as the European Union. That's one reason why we have joined the International Carbon Action Partnership — so that we can learn firsthand from them what they think worked and maybe some things that could have worked a whole lot better.

So yes, we will be learning from those experiences. We have no intention of repeating any of the mistakes that may or may not have been made, albeit even if they were made in good faith.

In terms of the member's specific question about the role of inspectors versus conservation officers, the member will see from the definition that it contemplates people operating in addition to conservation officers under the Environmental Management Act. I think we touched on this a little bit yesterday. We've been dealing with a few things now — legislation as well as estimates.

It might have been in the context of the estimates debate where we talked about staff in the environmental protection division who go out and do the routine inspections or visits to various industrial sites. They'll do some of the initial legwork, and where they start to believe that there's a problem requiring a significant degree of investigative work that could lead to eventual prosecution or charges…. It's at that point that they call in the conservation officer service. Those individuals are specifically trained to perform investigations and gather evidence to lead towards eventual court prosecutions — not that they always do.

If you're going to take a matter before the courts, as the member will appreciate, you have to make sure the evidence is gathered in a proper fashion and that there's continuity, etc., of documents. At the front end I would imagine most of the inspections to be done by staff working in the environmental protection division of the Ministry of Environment.

If they start to determine in their own minds, based on the information they're obtaining, that there is a significant degree of non-compliance that would perhaps warrant prosecution, that's when they call in the trained experts and the conservation officer service to start that evidence-gathering process.

Ultimately, depending on what the conversation officer service feels or determines is appropriate, they might then forward recommendations to Crown counsel. In our province, unlike some others, it's the Crown counsel service that ultimately determines whether or not charges should be laid. The conservation officer service or the police can make recommendations, but it's ultimately up to the Crown prosecutors working in the Crown counsel service to make that determination.

S. Simpson: Just to follow up on that a little bit. Particularly if the government continues on the model that it uses around industry stewardship to put in place its expectations around what will be accomplished and then says to industry, "It's your job to accomplish that," and "We want to make sure you hit the objectives that we have…." If that's the model that's to continue to be used, then the audit and oversight function becomes increasingly important, because that's where government obviously validates or satisfies itself and validates that in fact its expectations are being met by any given industry or organization.

In terms of inspectors — and I know this will depend somewhat on thresholds and on how much industry is captured by cap-and-trade — is there an expectation here that this is going to require some significant increase in staffing levels?

Hon. B. Penner: It's entirely possible that additional staffing resources could be required, but we won't have a firm idea about just how much until the design is complete. That's why we're continuing to have discussions with our partners within the WCI, the western climate initiative.

It is possible that we could adopt a cost recovery model. I know that currently we do send invoices, in effect, to a number of the industries that we inspect today for compliance, with various environmental permits that the ministry issues. So without stating categorically, because we haven't reached the point where we have to make that decision yet, it is possible that we could adopt a cost recovery model.

S. Simpson: I've read section 11 here. Could the minister explain a little bit about what a recognized compliance unit is?

Hon. B. Penner: Recognized compliance units are compliance units from other cap-and-trade systems that are approved for use by operators regulated under B.C.'s act to meet the compliance obligation under the act. The intention behind this particular section is to give us the authority to enter into a trading arrangement with the western climate initiative so that we can undertake those activities.

S. Simpson: Just to understand that a little bit better, that would be a unit that initiates with one of the other partners in the WCI — is within the jurisdiction of one of the other partners — but would be a unit that would be approved for trade purposes for British Columbia companies that were trading units back and forth. This would be, for example, a facility or an operation in Mexico that was recognized that would allow British Columbia companies to trade units with them, and it would be sort of already acknowledged that it was an acceptable standard. Is that what we're talking about?

Hon. B. Penner: Essentially, yes. The unit would have to be determined in accordance with the requirements of the western climate initiative. So it would have to meet the standard for resulting in a real reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

S. Simpson: I think I understand what a regulated operation is under the definitions. That would be a company, an entity, an industry, that is covered by cap-and-trade. What's a reporting operation, and how are reporting operations and regulated operations different?

Hon. B. Penner: This would contemplate that we would want to start collecting data from business organizations, industry or other entities that are not yet actually regulated under the act, but perhaps government may at some point in the future want to start regulating them.

In order to help us make that decision about how significant those emissions are or what role the reductions from those non-regulated industries could play in helping meet our overall reduction targets, it may be useful to have specific data from those various industries or businesses that are not yet officially regulated.

This just gives us the power to start collecting data in advance of actually regulating, potentially, those businesses.

S. Simpson: In regard to section 2, it talks about the operators of regulated operations, and then it lays out how they determine emissions attributable to the operation for the compliance period in 2(1). It says they will determine that the operator will "(a) determine the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the regulated operation for the compliance period, and (b) retire compliance units that, in total, represent an amount of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions that is at least equal to the amount of greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the regulated operation.…"

So I own this widget company that produces emissions and is captured by cap-and-trade. I determine that I have 50,000 tonnes of emissions, and so I have my credits. I turn over 50,000 credits that are valued at a tonne apiece, and then I'm good to go for that year — or maybe it's for five years, whatever the compliance period is.

It suggests here in 2(1)(a) that it will be determined by the operator what is the attributable to the regulated operation. So what is the role and how will government confirm that? Will it accept the information from the operator, unless it has a reason to believe that information is not accurate, or will it have some process where it affirms the information it's given by the operator before it actually does the transaction?

Hon. B. Penner: Section 38 of the act says that we'll have the authority to establish regulations, and I would anticipate that they'll have to report on which emissions are attributable to the regulated operation. Those regulations would also stipulate how those measurements must be undertaken and when those measurements must be made and the reports provided as well as to whom those reports must be provided. So those will be the requirements.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that that's what the regulation says, but just to step back one step just on the premise of this. The premise will be much as the industry stewardship model that the government uses. The premise is that any of those given operators and their activities…. They will have responsibility for determining that under the regulation and then providing that information to the inspector or the appropriate authorities, as to what their emissions are. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Penner: Yes, the companies would be required to submit those reports in the fashion that I just described, in accordance with the regulations. Failure to do so would constitute an offence, and filing false information would also be an offence. The act gives us authority to conduct audits or to require audits to be done. My understanding is that other cap-and-trade systems have similar mechanisms and work in the same way.

S. Simpson: This section also talks about recognized compliance units, which, as the minister explained, are units from a different jurisdiction within — if we're talking the WCI, and we'll talk about that, since that's likely what we're dealing with here — the WCI, another state or province within the WCI. When I look down at section 2(3), it says: "For the purposes of complying with subsection (1) (b), the operator of a regulated operation may not, as applicable, retire more than (a) the prescribed quantity of RCUs…."

So what does that mean? I'm kind of having a problem understanding that. If the recognized compliance units are those units from another place, how does that link to 2(3)? I'm just not quite understanding how that all works in terms of the role they play. I would have thought it would have had more to do with your other units, your allowance units, but it lists the RCUs.

Hon. B. Penner: The subsection that the member refers to, 2(3), allows for a restriction on the total number of recognized compliance units from other systems that can be used.

S. Simpson: Just so I understand this, under 2(1)(a) or 2(1)(b)…. So I say that I'm emitting 50,000 tonnes of emissions, for the sake of a number. I have allowance units to cover off 40,000 of those — and I'm making this up as I go along — and then I want to go and use the compliance units to make up the difference. There is some limit on the ability to use those recognized compliance units in terms of how much of that I can use to offset a lack of allowance units. Is that correct? I'm just trying to figure out the relationship between these different sets of units.

S. Simpson: That's kind of like that term…. I can't even remember what it was. The minister explained that it was an old law term in the other book about "generally, maybe, could be," or something like that….

I really am just trying to figure this out — what the role of these different units is. So what we're saying, then, without having numbers, is that there is the potential here that the regulations will say…. What this says is that the regulations can say…. And I assume that they might, since it's more explicit than a lot of things in the bill. The regulations might say that you can only use so much from another jurisdiction within the partnership to cover off what you're doing in terms of your own emissions. There may be some limit put on that, as to how much you can use from other jurisdictions to offset your own emissions. Is that it?

Hon. B. Penner: The member is essentially correct. I'm advised that it's more likely to be used for compliance units from outside the WCI, but the way the provision is written, we could limit the number of RCUs used within the WCI.

S. Simpson: Based on that, because that hadn't come to mind, there is the possibility here then that you could have two sets of rules — one for partners within the WCI, because there's some acknowledgment in there, and possibly use a different formula of allowance there, and then for going outside of the partnership. Is that a possibility? I know that there's some consideration of that.

S. Simpson: Under compliance reports, section 3(1) says: "The operator of a regulated operation must, in accordance with the regulations, submit to the director a report respecting (a) compliance with the obligations under section 2…" and any other matters prescribed by regulation. Is it the intention that these reports will be public?

Hon. B. Penner: My expectation is that all of the reports that would be submitted would be fully subject to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.

S. Simpson: They would be available under FOI? They would not simply be made available without having to jump through the FOI hoops?

Hon. B. Penner: I expect that this kind of information will likely be made public, similar to information that's made available through the Climate Registry.

S. Simpson: In section 3(2) it talks about supplementary reports. I know we've seen this in other legislation, where information has been changed or has been found to possibly be incorrect information or incomplete information. Supplementary reports would be made.

Under what circumstances do you think it's reasonable to expect that supplementary reports would be required, and would there be any penalty for not reporting accurately in the first case?

Hon. B. Penner: Supplementary reports are a way of having operators file updated or corrected information in a way that corrects an administrative error, perhaps, or some kind of mathematical mistake or calculation error that had taken place. It's not intended to address situations where there was deliberate fraud or misrepresentation but where there was something akin to a clerical error.

S. Simpson: When I look at subsection 3(5) right now, it talks about: "The director may (a) require a report under this section to be audited in accordance with the directions of the director, or conduct or authorize a person to conduct such an audit…."

When we consider, obviously, that we have initial reports, we have the potential for supplementary reports where there may be errors or omissions. Then we get — I assume, as we head down through the "getting into trouble" sections — to 5, where there's potential for audits. Under what circumstances would the minister envision auditing to be required based on compliance reports?

Hon. B. Penner: The audits could take place due to a variety of factors or determinations. They could be done solely on a random basis — a certain percentage being audited every year or every compliance period. Or it's possible that there could be something that's provided in that information that raises eyebrows — a suspicious drop or an unusual kind of reduction all at once. That may trigger an audit requirement. Or there could be reports or complaints generated by individuals or observers suggesting that there should be an audit undertaken.

Further, it's conceivable that…. When staff with the Ministry of Environment and the environmental protection division make visits to these sites, it occasionally happens where they see something that doesn't seem quite right, and then that warrants a closer look. That has certainly happened, I know, in the context of hazardous waste handlers.

The ministry goes out periodically and visits different sites. It may mean that they return to certain sites more often than they do to others, depending on the kind of performance that they actually observe.

S. Simpson: Who might perform these audits? Does the minister think there might be a role for the Auditor General's office?

Hon. B. Penner: The audits could be performed by ministry staff or by contracted organizations or entities

that are qualified to do this type of work. It wouldn't be my immediate expectation that the Auditor General would be doing this type of work.

He typically audits government functions or government agencies as opposed to private companies. These would mostly, I think, be private businesses. I don't want to comment further. The Auditor General will have to decide when, where and how he undertakes audits.

S. Simpson: I'm sure the Auditor General at some point, if this passes, will get an opportunity to audit the whole operation.

Is it the expectation of the minister that the director may, just in terms of a quality control issue, order some degree of random audits of operations just to ensure that there's that level of oversight to help keep people doing what they should be doing?

S. Simpson: I think I just have one more question that relates to the compliance reports, and it relates, going back, to that question. It is around, probably, the compliance reports as a very big piece of this, assuming that that's where the bulk of information is going to come from.

It's pretty explicit here in terms of some of the kinds of information that may be required. Obviously, there will be in the regulations the ability to have a long list of what that information might look like. What's the expectation, though, of the minister in terms of the kinds of additional information — over and above what's sort of laid out here, which is pretty straightforward — that are going to be required to make this thing work?

I'm thinking about that, I guess, in the early stages of the program, because the cap-and-trade, much like all of these things…. That's one of the things that I'm learning from talking to more and more people who are practitioners of some of this and actually have had to do it. While the list of things that we will do around climate change…. It's not that big a list. When you actually get to programs, it gets way more complicated, and when you actually get to trying to apply cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, it's much more challenging than maybe was first thought.

I know that we've had some people who have said: "We know what to do. It's just the political will to do it, and everything will be fine." Now that we're starting to do these things in some jurisdictions, we're finding out it's not quite as easy as some might have initially thought.

So I'm trying to determine: is it the expectation that at the beginning of the process there will be a somewhat more aggressive kind of audit function around compliance reports, an oversight function to help develop some of the knowledge to make this thing work?

I assume there will need to be adjustments in the program along the way, after it's in place and operates for a bit of time and people start realizing that some of the assumptions maybe weren't correct and that things aren't happening the way they were originally intended and that it needs to be tweaked, like Europe did — hopefully, with not quite the same consequences as initially in Europe.

Is there an expectation to use that audit function around reports and that to get a better handle on this at the outset as to what's really going on, to make the program work better in the long term?

Hon. B. Penner: Undoubtedly, there will be some learning that needs to take place, and we'll perhaps change our approach as more information comes in and as we learn as we go.

As the member has noted, there is the authority there in the section to allow for the director to require certain types of audits. The director may decide certain industries need to be audited more often or less often, as the case may be.

I don't have staff here with me from the environmental protection division, but again, going by memory, the way we conduct inspections or investigations of industries today for other reasons is in part determined by their track record.

So someone who has been demonstrated to be a bad actor can likely expect to get more frequent visits from their friendly Ministry of Environment inspector. Someone who has demonstrated corporate responsibility will still be subject to audit, and periodically will be visited, but probably not as frequently as someone who has a demonstrated track record of not meeting our expectations or the legal requirements.

G. Robertson: I have a number of questions related to section 4 and emissions reporting. Obviously, reporting being the backbone of any cap-and-trade program, there is a necessity that there is credible and robust reporting in B.C.'s cap-and-trade program if it's to have the public confidence and trust that really are critical to the system being a success.

The WCI, western climate initiative, has been recommending that reporting requirements do apply to both capped and non-capped sectors, the non-capped being sectors that may be phased in later or as thresholds shift. Is the reporting for the capped sectors anticipated to begin before the system is up? In other words, does the minister anticipate reporting in advance of the system being in place so that the bumps and bruises can be worked out and the system is functioning smoothly before the system is actually formally in place?

Hon. B. Penner: It is entirely possible that we will seek to obtain that information as quickly as possible and in advance.

G. Robertson: Entirely possible is not a very definitive statement. Will the minister clarify if there's a

commitment on behalf of the government to ensure that there is reporting in advance of the system being formalized so that that reporting system is shown to be rigorous and robust before it's required to be in operation?

Hon. B. Penner: As the member notes, the idea of advance reporting is one of the recommendations from the documents released recently by the western climate initiative. We did talk about this a little bit earlier on in the debate — that the purpose of the draft recommendations that were released is to stimulate public comment and dialogue.

We want to wait to hear what people have to say before we land on a firm position with respect to those various recommendations that were released in Salt Lake City this past Wednesday, May 21. So we're certainly interested to hear the feedback from various stakeholders on that particular suggestion, as with the other recommendations that were released for public comment.

I will also, though, observe that in Canada we have a fairly robust reporting system already for greenhouse gas emissions — more robust than, perhaps, some other jurisdictions. So we can take advantage of that. That information is being collected now.

As I indicated earlier, for example, the federal Environment Canada, typically every May, seems to be releasing information on Canada's greenhouse gas emissions globally as well as breaking them down by province. As I noted a few moments ago, according to the most recent data just supplied to us, Environment Canada indicates that B.C.'s greenhouse gas emissions fell 3.2 percent in the most current year, 2006, compared to the previous year, 2005, and that the 2005 emissions had dropped, themselves, 1.8 percent from 2004 levels.

So we're looking at about a 5 percent drop between 2004 and 2006, but as I also commented along with those observations earlier, we still have a lot of work to do to get to our 33 percent reduction target from what we anticipate '07 levels will be. We've got lots of work.

G. Robertson: The current requirements as set out by Environment Canada may not have anywhere near the level of detail and coverage that is required for this cap-and-trade system. Is the minister anticipating B.C. having a much more thorough and detailed reporting scheme beyond what is currently in place? Assuming the answer to that is yes, so that there is adequate reporting for a cap-and-trade system, will the reporting be made public from all of the emitters covered under the cap-and-trade program?

Hon. B. Penner: It is my expectation that more detailed information will likely be desired, and that's one reason why we've joined the Climate Registry, which originated in California. They invited us last year to join, and so we did. While maybe it's not there yet completely, I think that over time the Climate Registry will increasingly play that function of being, in essence, a central repository for greenhouse gas data for members of the western climate initiative.

One of the prerequisites for becoming a member of the western climate initiative is that member jurisdictions are expected to become members of the Climate Registry, and it's because the two concepts kind of go hand in hand. It's very difficult to manage the emissions if you're not accurately accounting and reporting. Those two things are both very deliberately tied together, and the B.C. government has joined both.

In terms of reporting information and the release of that information, as I indicated earlier, I believe all of this information will be fully subject to freedom-of-information disclosure.

G. Robertson: Just returning to the issue of the capped sectors reporting in advance of the system being fully up and running. Once the cap-and-trade program is in place, does the minister expect that the non-capped sectors will be reporting in advance of being phased into the cap-and-trade program?

Is it an expectation that there will be advance reporting for all the sectors that are not capped initially but that are being tracked so that we have clarity as to what sort of emissions are being generated by non-capped sectors and can make better decisions about when the caps should kick in?

Hon. B. Penner: The Climate Registry, which I talked about just a moment ago, has been accepting voluntary registrations of data from corporate entities, and they've been doing that for some time.

I recall from our visit to California last year when I was there with the Premier…. I remember looking at a spreadsheet of different corporations that had decided to voluntarily register their greenhouse gas emissions. There's a wide array of everything from utilities to private sector companies. One that stands out in my memory is Safeway. The grocery store chain, and numerous other companies, small and large, had already moved to voluntarily register their emissions.

So I think that the Climate Registry could well turn into the vehicle of choice here for doing the type of reporting that the member refers to.

G. Robertson: Just a more direct question specific to the Climate Registry. Does the minister anticipate that the data and reporting will be directed to the Climate Registry directly? Or is it anticipated that it will come to the B.C. government and to our jurisdiction first and be filtered on to the Climate Registry? Where is that reporting destined first?

Hon. B. Penner: Under the act in front of us, as written, they have to report to the director working for the Ministry of Environment. So the information at first instance legally has to come here. It may be that in the future, we want to include that information with the Climate Registry. The companies themselves may want to do that for various reasons — trading reasons,

G. Robertson: If the reporting is in fact direct to the director and the ministry, will there be a consistency in that reporting with the other jurisdictions in the western climate initiative or the other jurisdictions reporting additionally to the Climate Registry? Will that be a requirement within the reporting?

Hon. B. Penner: I would think the reporting would have to be if not identical then certainly consistent so that we get useful comparisons and apples-to-apples type of information. It may not be exactly the same in all instances, but certainly I would expect it to be largely similar.

G. Robertson: With the reporting to the director, what oversight mechanism will be in place for quality assurance of that reporting? Will it be specifically the director who's tasked with oversight of quality assurance on the reporting requirements?

Hon. B. Penner: It's similar to the compliance reports that we talked about in section 3. Subsection 3(5) gives the director auditing authority. The emission reports also could come along with an auditing requirement, because subsection 4(5) also gives the director virtually identical auditing authorities here as well.

G. Robertson: Thank you, Chair. In terms of the content of those reports and the quality assurance that is required, will that be set by the director? Will it be directly in the design of the reporting, or will it be put forward through regulation?

Hon. B. Penner: Subsection 4(1) — if the member wants to take a look at that — indicates quite clearly that the reports have to be done in accordance with regulations. Regulations will stipulate what, when, where and how the reports have to be conducted and submitted.

G. Robertson: In terms of breaches of the reporting, can the minister just outline what is anticipated in terms of enforcement and what the director or anyone else within government will be able to do in terms of enforcing regulation requirements?

Hon. B. Penner: If the member just flipped forward a little bit in the act, he would have found that under section 19, administrative penalties may be imposed for things that would include improper reporting.

For more serious violations, the section 24 provision has a bold heading on it, "Offences of providing false or misleading information and penalties," and 24(1) states as follows: "A person who knowingly provides false or misleading information when required under this Act to provide information commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of not more than $1 000 000 or imprisonment for a term of not more than 6 months, or both."

G. Robertson: Just returning to the issue of the public access to this reporting and information. The minister stated earlier that he believes that the reporting of emissions will be FOIable. Will the minister just make the commitment? Given the lack of information that is accessible through FOI related to the climate change initiatives, I think it's reasonable for the people of B.C. to be concerned and skeptical as to how much will ever be made public about the climate change initiatives.

I think it would be very helpful for the minister to commit to the reporting on emissions being accessible by FOI versus believing that it may be so. Will the minister make that commitment?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm not sure I agree with the member's underlying premise to his question, because the climate action secretariat is fully subject to FOI disclosure and complies in every regard with the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.

In terms of making information available, it's incredibly transparent. In fact, the member was just referring to the draft recommendations that have been disclosed from all the western climate initiative partners, including British Columbia. This is available on the Internet free of charge. More than 300 people participated in the conference on Wednesday in Salt Lake City, either by attending in person or by logging in from their computer or listening over the telephone.

All these draft recommendations are in the public realm. People can freely peruse them if they'd like. As I indicated earlier — the member may have missed that portion of the debate when I was discussing this with the member for Vancouver-Hastings — all of the reports that would come into government would be fully subject to disclosure in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.

G. Robertson: I will beg to differ in terms of the access to information for the public. Certainly, the WCI documents…. Every other jurisdiction within the western climate initiative has been making their information publicly available.

It has been much more difficult, and at times impossible, for the people of B.C. to access all the information related to this government's climate change initiatives, which is regretful. I think it has made it more difficult for the public to trust and to have confidence that these measures are all being taken with the public interest first and foremost, and to understand the inner workings and rationale in the development of these initiatives, which is an important thing to do.

For those who may be following at home, we are buried in the guts of Bill 18, the cap-and-trade bill, and focused right now on the reporting requirements for the large emitters in the province of B.C., going forward, as part of capping and then trading these emissions.

I think it's really critical that we're clear — and the minister was a lot more clear in his last response — as to the accountability, the transparency and the credibility of this reporting, given the amount of scrutiny that's required to ensure that all emissions are measured and reported on, and that we have a system that is successfully tracking these emissions and ensuring that we are able, as a province, to reduce them.

We have to have confidence in the system. I think there are real questions when so much is left to regulation, when so much to date has not been publicly available information. There are real questions as to how solid this cap-and-trade system will be and how effective it will be in playing a role in reducing B.C.'s emissions.

Just one final question related to reporting. Will the province be collecting fees specifically to administer the reporting requirements that exist, or will that all be covered within government operations?

Hon. B. Penner: Again, this is another issue that we've already canvassed in this debate somewhat earlier. I did talk about the likelihood that we would be looking at a cost-recovery model for reports, similar to what we do with other inspections that the environmental protection division of the Ministry of Environment currently engages in, in terms of industrial settings. Section 44(d) of the act gives us the authority to charge those types of fees. So that addresses that concern.

In terms of the member's other comments around reporting, I certainly concur. It's important to have information that's out to the public. I've mentioned already the Environment Canada reports that get done in terms of provincial greenhouse gas emissions, and that information tends to get released every May about this time, as it just was a few days ago.

In addition, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act, which this Legislature passed last fall — it was Bill 44 — states in section 4 under the heading "Progress reports on reducing BC greenhouse gas emissions," and then in bold print states as follows:

All those reports will be made public and people can track the progress that British Columbia is making in terms of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, and that is a commitment that we've put in law.

S. Simpson: Section 5, under 5(1) says: "For the purposes of limiting greenhouse gas emissions in a compliance period, the Lieutenant Governor in Council, may, by regulation, establish a cap on the BCAUs that may be made available under the section…."

Does the use of the word "may" suggest that they also may not? The question that I have for the minister is: by suggestion, may there be a circumstance where, in fact, the cabinet wouldn't establish regulations where there would be a cap on allowance units and they would be open? If that's not the case, then I'd ask the minister why the word "shall" wasn't used instead of "may."

Hon. B. Penner: I am advised that the drafting convention used by government lawyers is not to compel the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. So the drafting convention is to use the word "may."

S. Simpson: A quick comment around that, and then a question related to that. Am I to assume by this that the intention of the government is that they shall, in fact, put that cap in place? We can talk a little bit more at a later time about what the cap might be, but there will be a cap put in place. Could the minister confirm that?

The other point that I would make here for the minister is that I'm not sure whether he erred — and he can correct this if I'm wrong — but I heard the minister suggest to the member for Vancouver-Fairview that the climate change secretariat is FOIable.

It's my understanding that substantively they aren't FOIable, because they work for the cabinet committee and they provide services to the cabinet committee which, of course, isn't FOIable. Maybe the minister could clear it up about whether, in fact, the work of the secretariat is FOIable.

Hon. B. Penner: It is our intention to establish a cap. That's part of why we're debating this legislation and is what section 5 is there for. The climate action secretariat complies in every respect with the requirements of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.

S. Simpson: Is it the expectation that the cap that's put on allowance units — which will be established, as the minister says he expects — will be a reducing cap over time — i.e., the number of units allowed will continue to reduce every year or every compliance period?

Related to that, is it the expectation that it will ultimately get to a level that corresponds to the government's intended 33 percent reduction?

Hon. B. Penner: That is the general way that cap-and-trade systems work. The overall number of allowances goes down over time. That is, in fact, one of the draft recommendations that was released two days ago for the meeting in Salt Lake City by the western climate initiative partners — that the number of allowance units that are authorized ratchets down over time.

S. Simpson: Noting the time, I would move that the committee report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

G. Gentner: I'd like to thank the minister and, of course, all the staff who are here today. It's a Friday, and spring has finally sprung. I know there are other places we'd rather be, I'm sure. Nevertheless, this is the people's business, and I'm hopeful that we'll accomplish some things today.

First off, some of my duties include many things, and one, of course, is dealing with seniors and seniors health. I'm going to ask the minister some questions relative to that issue.

As you know, primarily the issues are broken down into three major correlated issues — that of health, that of housing and that, of course, of income. I know they sort of mesh together and may not completely involve the Ministry of Health, although there are, under housing, moments shared with B.C. Housing, where the operating side is in partnership with the Ministry of Health. Of course, much of seniors health deals with the ability to pay and income, etc.

So those are the three precepts, if you will, that in many ways drive seniors who are looking for their way of independence.

I won't spend too much time on this, but we get through the language, and we break it down to understand what it means. We all understand that independence for seniors is probably one of the most important aspects of a good healthy life — that vision, that ability to have a sense of independence.

For the most part, seniors don't want to be coddled. Seniors want to have that sense of independence, and they want to be able to feel healthy and have some decisions that they can make on their own. Nevertheless, we do enter that area where dependency versus independence depends on income, the ability to house themselves and, of course, the ability to have proper, comprehensive, accessible, affordable health in this province.

If I can apologize now and just say upfront to the minister that with the situation, there may be times when I will drift between different subjects. Noting the hour, we have so little time. With that, I'm not going to spend much more time with the intro.

I'm going to begin with the notion of bed count and what it really means in the ministry. As of early February this year I sent a letter to the minister, and I haven't received a response. The letter sent to the minister was regarding specific information on the government's work to date in fulfilling its promises of 5,000 new residential care beds for seniors, originally by 2005. Now, of course, that commitment has been modified to include 5,000 new residential care beds and assisted-living units by 2008.

I'm sure the minister is very much anticipating these questions. First of all, let me just ask the minister if he did receive my letter of February 8, 2008.

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, we did receive the request. The request was a large and complex request. Much work has gone into preparing a response at the ministry. I understand that within weeks, a response will go to the member.

G. Gentner: On the record, we're suggesting therefore that we'll hear something by June 15-ish of 2008. Is that correct?

G. Gentner: I certainly will look forward to hearing that information. I do understand the situation the minister is in. It is somewhat complicated. We know much about the interpretation of numbers and statistics — how they're used relative to how we interpret the minister's view of what happened in the '90s and my view, of course, of what's happening today.

So those statistics are going to be very, very important. I'm not going to repeat what someone like Disraeli said about statistics, but they can be used in any which

I'm somewhat confused here. I just want to understand what the language is. We understand that the government had a platform in 2001 and then, quoting some of its promises, that it would work with non-profit societies to build and operate an additional 5,000 new intermediate and long-term care beds by 2006.

It suddenly realized, I believe, that it wasn't going to fulfil that promise, and somehow that changed. The language changed whereby in the 2005 platform, it would complete 5,000 new residential care and assisted-living units by 2008 — so the language has changed somewhat — including 1,700 units currently under construction. That was our understanding back then.

So the goalposts have changed. We're not just talking about long-term care beds; we're now talking about units. My question to the minister would be: what's changed in the seniors population between 2001 and 2005 that, in its thinking, it is no longer necessary to add these beds? Instead we're now looking at more units.

Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, the distinction between beds and units is a very important one. In fact, I think when we say that we are adding 5,000 incremental residential care and assisted-living beds, it very dramatically understates the ambitiousness of the plan that we have undertaken.

In fact, having been Minister Responsible for Housing after 2001, having been Minister of Health after 2005 and having been to the opening now of literally thousands of units across the province….

We are not talking beds. We're not talking units. We're talking homes. What we have committed to is private residential units. They are beautiful, well-appointed units. They're spacious. They have wonderful washroom facilities. They're wheelchair-accessible. They are homes, and we have made a huge investment in that area. Literally hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested in residential care and assisted living since 2001.

I'm proud that today not only do we have over 4,000 incremental residential care and assisted-living units, or homes, in the province of British Columbia, but also — and this goes to the member's question as well — we have close to 6,000 homes, or units, that have been remediated since 2001.

One of the things that we found on taking office in 2001…. Again, as Minister for Housing I was well aware of this although not directly responsible for it, as was the Minister of Health. But as the Deputy of Health of the day, Penny Ballem, noted, many of the units which we inherited in 2001 were substandard in relation to the standards that had been set out first by the NDP government, which existed up until 2001, and by the B.C. Liberal government, which came after it.

We remediated close to 6,000 units of substandard stock during our first years in office. The member says: "Why didn't you fulfil the 5,000 in your first term?" Well, the principal reason is that we ended up remediating close to 6,000 homes in the province of British Columbia.

I'll give you an example of the challenge in this area. If we go to the James Bay Care Centre just a few blocks from here…. I had an opportunity a couple of years ago to tour the James Bay Care Centre.

When we took office in 2001, there were over 200 residents in the James Bay Care Centre. They were crammed three and four into a room. The facility was decaying. It didn't have proper sanitation facilities, didn't have proper recreational facilities, wasn't wheelchair-friendly and had far too many residents in a room.

So we made a huge investment in the James Bay Care Centre, and at the end of that we actually ended up with a lesser number of beds in that James Bay care facility. We ended up with fewer beds because we converted three- and four-bed wards into single private rooms — and very nice single private rooms. We lost beds, but we had an enormous increase in the quality of life which the residents of the James Bay Care Centre could enjoy.

That's part of the explanation of what has happened between 2001 and 2008 in terms of the provision of residential care and assisted living, but that's just part of the story. When we took office in 2001, there wasn't anything like what we would call assisted living today. It didn't exist. That was not part of the NDP government's job in terms of putting living units in place for seniors. Assisted living did not exist.

By 2005 we had not only fully articulated the model, but we had also put, I think, over a thousand assisted-living units in place in British Columbia. Since the 2005 election we've continued to build on that model and continued to build on the distribution of assisted living and residential care.

Assisted living, of course, is for those often frail but nevertheless independent British Columbians who can live with some measure of support in an independent facility. Typically in assisted living, one is living in a private room. There are shared dining facilities — although there's a very small kitchen in the unit — and shared recreational facilities. There are two meals a day provided. There are recreational and social amenities provided, and there's an opportunity, where it's necessary, to have home care to the suite as well.

Obviously, as we age, the level of acuity of services we require often goes up as well. So what we see is a transition over time in many people from assisted living to residential care, which is more typically 24-7 complex care. So in terms of the division among those 5,000 incremental homes between assisted living and residential care, that is something we rely on the health authorities to determine.

They are in a better position than us to judge what is required on the ground in terms of: is it 3,000 assisted living and 2,000 residential, or vice versa? Those are questions which the health authorities look very closely at. But in either event, we made the commitment. The commitment was absolutely the right commitment, and I'm proud to say that we will be

seeing later this year the 5,000th of those 5,000 committed homes for frail British Columbians.

G. Gentner: The time is tight, as you all know here, and I appreciate the answer. The minister can talk about all the different numbers and what was substantial. He can come forward with all the different falsehoods he wants, interpreting….

G. Gentner: Okay, let's just say it's somewhat of a political ruse to use these numbers to his political advantage as the minister is suggesting.

The Chair: Member, can you withdraw your comments first. Then you can use a different word.

G. Gentner: I withdraw the comments which have upset the minister. The minister obviously wants to hedge.

G. Gentner: The minister can hedge and duck and dart the questions relative to what happened. I know the minister gave an example of what his interpretation was of substandard conditions at James Bay Lodge, but let's not forget that this government shut it down. So 208 long-term care beds are reduced. We can look at the Gorge Road Hospital — 288 beds gone.

On and on it goes. That's just within the Vancouver Island Health Authority. We can go on and on about the Malaspina Lodge. We can go on about the Mount St. Mary Hospital. It was absolutely traumatic what had happened there, and it was based on this government's interpretation of what it believed was the standard. It was there to fulfil a view of what it was meant to do, and that was, hopefully, to increase a move or shift away from, of course, long-term care facilities into that of assisted living. That was the philosophy and the ideology of the government of the day.

Can the minister explain to me, based on the recent report from the British Columbia Medical Association, where it states that the Government must honour its original promise of 5,000 long-term care beds, "and these beds must be: (a) a net increase of actual beds relative to the number of beds available in 2001 and (b) above and beyond any increases to the number of assisted living units or other types of HCC services…." Again: "Above and beyond any increases to the number of assisted living units or other types of HCC services."

Could the minister comment? Does he disagree with the report and the suggestions and recommendations by the BCMA?

Hon. G. Abbott: Let's begin by noting that the member is incorrect. He said that the James Bay Care Centre had been shut down. If he takes the time to walk three blocks, Mr. Chair, he can walk right by the James Bay Care Centre. In fact, I'm sure they would welcome him to come inside and see the beautiful rooms that exist for the residents there.

If he wants to see Mount St. Mary's he can walk three blocks in another direction and see the beautiful new facility that is Mount St. Mary Hospital.

It is curious that he would characterize improvements to facilities as shutting them down. But again, perhaps there's some messaging that I'm not understanding in the member's comments. Perhaps the member is saying that no matter how decrepit, no matter how inappropriate or outmoded a facility is, one should never improve it. One should never remediate it. One should never replace it, if that is the wise thing to do. I guess that may again take us to one of those gulfs that sometimes exist between the New Democratic Party and the B.C. Liberal Party.

I think it was in the last election, 2005, that the New Democrats — and the member can correct me if I'm wrong on this — promised 1,000 units. We promised 5,000. To date we are, I think, 4,054 towards that total. That is correct — 4,053 towards that total.

I'm entirely confident, because I know how things are rolling out in the months ahead, that a little later in 2008 we will celebrate the 4,500th of the residential care and assisted-living units, and a little later again in 2008 we will be celebrating the 5,000th. I'm sure that members on both sides of the House will show up for that very happy occasion.

G. Gentner: The minister can roll out numbers — 4,054. Nevertheless, we asked for that information some time ago, and he's just told the House that it will be available on June 15. Yet he has the numbers rolling off his tongue right now, so I don't understand why the minister cannot provide those numbers.

With the letter, what we did request was not only the new net residential care beds created in B.C. since 2001…. We want to know where the beds are located by facility name, what city or town, which regional health authority. We want to know how they became operational and which ones are still under development; what was the date when they became operational; and for ones that are still under development, what are expected completion dates.

You know, the minister was aware of this way back on February 8, and yet he's unable to deliver that information until after the session, and yet here we now hear some interesting numbers he's able to produce at this moment.

On the bed count. Again, to the promise that "by the end of this year, as this government delivered on its 5,000-bed commitment" — this is from the government itself — "we can truly be proud of the improved services for our province's seniors…that ensure quality care and a high standard of living."

So my question is: when did the government move away from its promise of 5,000 long-term care beds to 5,000 long-term care beds and units? Can he tell us when that decision was made?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member has said: "Why didn't you give me the answers to the questions posed in my letter?" Then he went on, actually, to answer the question himself, which is that they asked for a level of complexity and detail in the answer that I certainly haven't provided here to this point.

If the member had written me a letter and said, "How many residential care and assisted-living units have been completed subject to the promise that was made?" I would have undoubtedly been able to sign off a letter very quickly to him saying that we're currently at 4,053. But if he then asked, "Where are they? When did they start? What status are they? When will they be finished? How many units?" etc…. The questions are quite different ones.

If the member asked me how many blades there are in a square foot of courtyard, we could probably go out and in a reasonable length of time answer that question. If he asked me how many blades of grass there are in the entire courtyard, it's apt to take a little longer. That is precisely what we are doing so that we actually answer all of the questions that the member poses.

In terms of: has the government moved away? No, we have not. Whether one calls them beds…. A bed is a steel frame with a mattress on it. Until you have someone to provide care for the person in the bed and provide a place for the bed to be, the bed means very little. We have not moved away from that.

As I said earlier, we have been moving towards the completion of 5,000 incremental units of residential care and assisted living. If the member doesn't think that assisted living is part of the continuum of services for the frail elderly, then maybe, perhaps, he hasn't visited many assisted-living facilities.

I'd love to hear, because I've often wanted to hear, what the NDP's view of assisted living is. Maybe the member will tell me now that it's just not something that's worthwhile, that we really shouldn't be thinking of it in terms of the long-term care continuum. I'm happy to hear that and debate that. I think assisted living has been enormously important in terms of the additions to the continuum of options to the frail elderly.

I'm very proud to be part of a government that will be delivering, later this year, on the 5,000th of those residential care and assisted-living units.

G. Gentner: Well, the minister can give out the numbers — 4,053. He says he's held up on the need of complexity and detail, but in order to have those numbers, you need the complexity and detail to back up your numbers. The minister hasn't done that. He's unwilling to do it, and hopefully we'll know in the next couple of weeks whether he will actually give us proof of what these numbers truly mean.

He's evaded the question once again. The question was, relative to what came out from the BCMA, Bridging the Islands, which stated, and I'll repeat, "The government must honour its original promise that these beds" — 5,000 beds, not units — "must be…above and beyond any increase to the number of assisted-living units," or other types of HCC services….

So does the minister concur with this statement by the BCMA, and will it fulfil its original promise of 5,000 long-term care beds?

Hon. G. Abbott: No, I don't concur with the statement that has just been read out by the member. The promise we made in 2005 was for 5,000 incremental residential care and assisted-living units or beds. Units or beds are the same thing in our world. Unlike the 1990s, we don't double-, triple-, quadruple-bunk. The standard of the day is a private room. In some cases they are semi-private rooms so that couples can be together, if that's their wish and if that can be accommodated within the framework of the institution. But the promise is very clear. It's 5,000 residential care and assisted-living units — or beds, as the case may be.

G. Gentner: What's more, now, under the spin of the Liberal government…. I mean, it was LTC beds, and then it's assisted-living beds. In a press release, as produced yesterday from B.C. Housing, that count is now going to include supportive housing units. The math is changing. The goalposts are changing. It was supposed to originally be 5,000 long-term care beds, and the minister is now on record that he disagrees with the BCMA's position that it should commit to its original 5,000 long-term care beds.

I'd like to ask the minister, also, quoting from the report, "The provincial government must immediately increase funding to home health care and home support programs, at a minimum, to the national average in order to both increase the number of users and expand the range of services offered…." Can the minister comment on whether he agrees or disagrees with the statements put forward not by me but by the BCMA?

Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, I'm not familiar with the B.C. Housing report of yesterday, but I expect what B.C. Housing would be talking about is supportive seniors housing with home care appended. I suspect that is what they are talking about, but we do not need

to include the number of senior supportive housing with home care appended to our total in order to reach 5,000. That's not necessary.

In fact, while that supportive seniors housing with home care appended is very, very important in the continuum, it is not part of our 5,000-bed or -unit calculation. That is residential care and assisted living. Those supportive senior housing units with home care appended will be in addition to that. I think…. I don't know, the member has the report, not me, but I expect we're probably talking a thousand or more units like that.

In terms of home care and home support…. Again, the member seems to feel that it is unfortunate that I can provide him with answers to his question, but nevertheless I'll continue to do that. I know that sometimes the facts get in the way of a bold assertion, but here are the facts.

The facts are that since 2001, our budget in this ministry for home care and home support has moved from $400 million, when we took office, to $646 million in the last fiscal year, '07-08. That's a 60 percent increase in the budgets there, and we have seen, in both home care and home support, increases every year since 2001.

In fact, if one goes back in time, it has been some years since there was actually a reduction in home care and home support. One would have to go back to the year 1999 for that, when there was a 5.9 percent reduction in home care and home support. The member will recall that it is a government other than this government that was in power at that time.

G. Gentner: Again, relative to a report for the BCMA…. It states: "The provincial government must immediately increase funding to home health care and home support programs at a minimum to the national average in order to both increase the number of users and expand the range of services offered." Does the minister agree with the statement by the BCMA or not?

Hon. G. Abbott: The BCMA report says lots of things. In some areas I think they make constructive suggestions. In some areas the analysis is interesting and compelling. In some other areas, particularly in those areas where some of the assertions that are being made are supported by analysis from people like the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, I think some of the assertions there are suspect, and that may be.

You know, I can only relate the facts, and that is a 60 percent increase in home care and home support.

Hon. G. Abbott: If the member doesn't agree that that's the case, then he should tell me why he doesn't agree.

I have, from the Canadian Institute for Health Information, all of the numbers over the years for every province, going back in time 15 years now. I can tell the member definitively that from 1994 to 2001 the average of the provincial territorial government budgets for home care and home support increased by 91 percent. In British Columbia the budget only increased by 25 percent, and that was the lowest of any province in Canada in that period of 1994 to 2001.

It included, as I've noted, that one year, 1999, where there was actually an almost 6 percent reduction in the budget. But on average, over the course from '94-01, British Columbia had the lowest increases of any provinces in Canada. The average, from 2000 to 2004, was 16 percent across the nation. British Columbia was 36 percent, the second highest in Canada.

You know, when one looks at the record, I think that in fact the record's a pretty darn good one for our government. We have made huge investments across the continuum of seniors care, and I'm proud of what we've been able to do.

G. Gentner: The BCMA study also says — and I'm going to ask the minister to agree or disagree with the BCMA, not me: "The government still falls short of its goal of over 1,300 beds. This is consistent with the Ministry of Health's own data showing that from 2001 to 2007 there had actually been a net decline of 553 residential care beds — Ministry of Health CERTS Data 2008-0040."

Hon. G. Abbott: Could I ask the member to provide me the page number for that?

Hon. G. Abbott: The problem with the analysis that is brought forward in the case the member cites is this. We are building a continuum of care. Prior to 2001 there was no assisted living. In fact, there was no distinction made across the then continuum of residential care. It was just a block of units that were termed residential care. After 2001 our government began to build a portion of the continuum that we call assisted living.

That assisted living is a very important part of the continuum, and the continuum ranges from home and home care and home support through to supportive seniors housing with home care appended; to assisted living, where there's personal care and two meals a day provided, and so on; to that highest acuity, most intensive form of support, which we call residential care.

To say that one should look only at residential care as the incremental gain is incorrect. People do not go from living independently at home without home support to residential care. They can, in some instances. My father did because he had a series of strokes which incapacitated him, so he moved very quickly from independent at home to residential care, but that is not the typical journey.

The typical journey of aging is across that continuum from home care through supportive seniors housing with home care appended, through assisted living, through residential care. So to take one portion of the continuum and then compare it to the pre-2001 undifferentiated block of units is inappropriate.

G. Gentner: I gather from that that the minister disagrees with the BCMA, and it's inappropriate. I would suggest that, you know, relative to discussions of what's being counted here as a long-term bed or unit and now supportive housing units, perhaps the minister, who has had some experience with B.C. Housing, could ask them to correct those numbers, because it was in a press release as of yesterday. It seems to inflate the numbers.

Perhaps as the minister knows, on this side we believe in an advocate for seniors that could culminate or put together all the issues of seniors and break down the barriers, liaise differently than we're seeing today with various other ministries. The recommendations on aging were interesting ones that affect not only the Community Services Ministry and the Ministry for Housing but, above all, this ministry.

We're not going to get into that argument here today, because we disagree on that one, but I do think that there should be more cohesiveness between the ministries on how they do the count on this issue.

I'm interested, too, because I read last year's debate, last year's estimates — maybe very quick answers to these questions — and I want to know what the minister's interpretation is relative to a remediated bed. Is this a bed or a new unit? Is it LTC; is it assisted living? What is a remediated bed?

Hon. G. Abbott: I cited an example earlier of the James Bay Care Centre, just a few blocks from here. If the member wishes, I can send him photographs of the unremediated James Bay Care Centre. It shows narrow doorways. It shows substandard sanitation facilities. It shows a lack of recreational and dining amenities. It shows multiple beds within a single room. That is a good example of an unremediated room.

A remediated room is one where it's wheelchair-accessible, where the sanitation facilities are up to standard, where there are recreational and social and dining amenities and where, unless otherwise looked for, the private room is the standard.

G. Gentner: I need to know what the minister means by the word "incremental."

Hon. G. Abbott: If I have one finger up now and I put up four, three are incremental.

G. Gentner: I've just got to go to the language here, because when we do the math, coming up shortly, I've got to get this straight. What is referred to as "a new care space," as seen on various health care authority websites?

Hon. G. Abbott: Could I request the member to put it into context or cite the source? I'm not that familiar with exactly what he means.

G. Gentner: I see it now and then on some of the brochures. Some of the one-page ads that we see in The Vancouver Sun on seniors health have referred to it constantly. Perhaps the government's spin doctors are referring to something that…. Maybe the Ministry of Health doesn't know it's there. It's referred to many times, so I'd like to know what is meant by a new care space. What does it mean?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, it is difficult to quite be precise without having the context in which the words are used. From the perspective of the staff that are advising me here today, the expression might be used in a variety of ways, but typically, it would be used to refer to non-medical space versus medical space.

G. Gentner: So that would also be part of the count, therefore — medical use or a unit as a living space?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, not having the benefit of the context of whatever documents the member is referring to, it's difficult to know. When we talk about 5,000 incremental units or beds, it means we have created an additional 5,000 units where people will be living, in a unit to the standards that are set out in the contemporary model. We don't use spaces in the dining room and say that someone could live there, so therefore it's a space. " It's a living unit, and usually a very, very nice living unit.

G. Gentner: Well, you know, I have to ask, because the language is somewhat confusing for many of the public, and I'm sure that another few months from now it's going to be a major debate as to what is the meaning of the 5,000 — this miraculous number of 5,000.

In some of the language I've read from the government it is known as an upgraded unit. Is government counting the upgraded units and the independent living in their own homes — and I'm quoting from another brochure — as part of the total of more than 3,677 new units?

Hon. G. Abbott: No, we are not. What the member is referring to is a program by B.C. Housing which sees an investment made, typically, in a supportive seniors housing unit. It is a package which they put into place.

It includes assists in the washroom for someone who is wheelchair-bound. It includes having fixtures in places where they can be appropriately accessed by someone who is wheelchair-bound. Basically, it is an

investment in a seniors supportive facility or a seniors housing facility such that the home care that may be appended to the unit can be readily utilized.

G. Gentner: I want to go quickly back to the supportive housing units. The supportive housing units are part of the homeless outreach program. The question is: how many in the Premier's homeless outreach program are counted as part of the seniors beds or unit count within this ministry?

G. Gentner: That's what I was hoping to hear, because we're somewhat suspicious on this side as to how the count is occurring. Again, June 15 or thereabout we'll get the official explanation of what those numbers really mean. I'm sure we're going to have a little fun relative to what the meaning of the — what shall we call it? — Liberal government math really is.

The seniors supportive housing program and the campus-of-care development are occurring. Within the campus of care, is that also part of the count?

Hon. G. Abbott: Where they are new units and they are assisted living and residential care, yes.

Just so the member understands, when the term "campus of care" is used, it is in reference to a seniors facility where one may begin in a supportive seniors unit, living almost entirely independently, and where the level of acuity or medical need requires moving later to assisted living and, again, even later, should acuity again rise, being able to move into, within the same broad facility, a residential care component of the overall facility.

I'm a great admirer of campuses of care. I don't like the term "aging in place," particularly, but that's what it allows. It allows aging in place and allows the quite seamless movement of frail elderly from one level of support to another. But at the same time, the social connections are maintained because they are living within the same broad facility.

G. Gentner: I want to move quickly to…. Well, I'll stick with a few more questions relative to the bed issue. Back to the BCMA report, long-term care beds per 1,000. What is the average for the province?

Hon. G. Abbott: The most recent figure we have in respect to beds per 1,000 of the 75-plus population is 97.8.

G. Gentner: And those are long-term care beds, or does that include what the government refers to as units?

G. Gentner: I want to quote page 2 of the BCMA report, from the top of the page. For several measures, B.C. does not compare favourably. "In 2005-06 B.C. had the lowest number of residential care beds, 36.5 per 1,000, for those aged 65 and over, well below the Canadian average, 47.1 per 1,000."

Hon. G. Abbott: One should be cautious in those kinds of pan-provincial comparators. In the first instance, British Columbians live longer and healthier than any other Canadians. In fact, British Columbians live longer and healthier than pretty much anyone else on the face of the earth. So that's a wonderful thing. As a consequence, there's…. Because we smoke less and a number of other things, we actually are able to sustain good health longer, so that's a first important point to note.

Secondly, we need to be vigilant around whether, for example, there is an assisted-living program within the continuum in any given province. I'm certainly no expert on what New Brunswick or P.E.I. or Quebec do in terms of their long-term care continuum. What I do know is that British Columbia is developing one.

We're continuing to make huge investments. We're going to see roughly a 20 percent increase in that incremental number of units just in 2008 alone. I can tell the member that in places like the North Okanagan, which in the next few weeks is going to see 106 new residential care beds and 24 new assisted-living beds, that is going to have a profound impact on the pressure on hospitals, on acute care beds. I do think that the investments we're making are entirely appropriate.

G. Gentner: I agree. You know, we do have a healthier lifestyle. The government can try and take all the accolades it wants, but climate has a lot to do with who and what we've become.

But that still hasn't explained to me the huge discrepancy, as seen in this report, regardless of longevity. The report suggests that the average of residential care beds here is 36.5 per 1,000, with those of the rest of Canada being 47.1. Can the minister have another try at this?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll try again. It is difficult to do reliable comparisons between provinces because, again, residential care is important, and depending on how it's defined, it may be more expansive or less expansive in any other provincial jurisdiction.

But the business of managing the needs of aging and often frail British Columbians involves not just residential care but a continuum, as I said earlier, that begins with home care and home support through supportive seniors housing, with home care appended to assisted living and, ultimately, to residential care.

Now, the member should also know…. I gave him one example where, in just a few weeks in just one part of British Columbia, we'll see 106 incremental residential care units coming on stream. But across the province, we are going to see hundreds of those residential care units, as well as some additional assisted living, coming on stream in 2008.

I think all of that is in the right direction. It is certainly way further in the right direction than the promise that the New Democratic Party made in the 2005 election of 1,000 residential care units. I think they really undershot with that promise. In fact, we're going to see a whole lot more than that in the months ahead.

G. Gentner: Well, with all due respect, I think the minister is evading the question. I asked for why he could attribute the difference. I mean, regardless of the factors the minister has suggested, this is a huge discrepancy between the rest of Canada. In part it may be because, perhaps, the staffing levels are quite different as well. Perhaps the minister would like to discuss that.

I want to ask the minister: how many hours per care resident is the standard for British Columbia? I'm talking from a staffing perspective.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll do the best to answer the member's question. Again, he should appreciate that different provinces measure these things in different ways. So we try to ensure we're comparing apples to apples here. In terms of British Columbia: worked hours per resident day, in direct care, 2.57; paid hours per resident day, in direct care, 3.14 hours.

Just so the member knows, those staffing levels in residential care, which we are currently working with health authorities to improve, were set out in order-in-council 482, which was approved and ordered on April 16, 1999, and signed by the presiding member of the executive council, Glen Clark, and by Penny Priddy, who was then the Minister of Health and Minister Responsible for Seniors.

Hon. G. Abbott: The numbers, we believe, are quite recent and quite accurate. But the best way, I think, to indicate just how much of an investment we have made in terms of residential care and investment in residential care specifically…. In 2001-2002 the actual was $1.16 billion; by '06-07 the actual had grown to $1.351 billion. The '07-08 forecast is 1.416 billion, and of course, the coming fiscal year will involve an even larger expenditure. Just going to the '06-07 actual, that's an 18 percent increase in residential care investment.

G. Gentner: We don't know where…. I still don't know how recent these numbers are. I mean, is the average 3.14 today? Was it 3.14 three years ago? How recent are these numbers?

Hon. G. Abbott: Just so the member understands or can place the previously referenced numbers in context, this comes from the Canadian Institute for Health Information, I believe — these numbers. So this is total LTC-facility-paid hours per resident day by province or territory. I'm going to give British Columbia just to give a sense of how it's changed over time. For British Columbia: for '97-98, 3.3; '98-99, 3.5; '99-2000, 3.6. It stays stable over time then 3.7 in '05-06. That's a reasonable approximation.

G. Gentner: Well, StatsCan…. Residential care facilities 2005-2006 is correct. It says it's 3.7 for British Columbia, but it has the worst record of accumulated paid hours during a year per residential day. Ontario is 3.8; P.E.I. is 4.2; New Brunswick is 4.2; Newfoundland and Labrador is 4.8; Alberta is 5.1; Manitoba is 5.2; Nova Scotia is 5.7; Saskatchewan is 5.7; and Quebec is 6.6. The average for Canada is 4.7. Can the minister comment?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, because this is an apples-to-oranges comparison. It includes different things in the formula and is misleading because of that.

G. Gentner: So can the minister briefly describe how the formula is different in British Columbia than elsewhere?

Hon. G. Abbott: A few examples of how the staffing levels are measured differently. Our numbers are actual contact time. In some of the other jurisdictions there's inclusion of overhead, administrative costs, overtime, vacation time, non–direct nursing time and so on.

G. Gentner: Can the minister break down the difference of the staffing levels — actuals — amongst all the health authorities?

M. Farnworth: While the minister is getting that information, I'd like to raise a small matter with the minister about a constituent of mine and an issue about an MRI wait-list. I'm going to provide the minister with some details, and if he could commit to me to look into this particular case, I would be much appreciative of any efforts that he can bring to bear on the situation.

We do have the numbers for Interior Health, Northern Health and Vancouver Island Health. In work hours per resident day, direct care: IHA, 2.8; NHA, 2.8; VIHA — and it has, in brackets, 2011, behind it, so I presume that's what they're working towards — 2.88 hours. We have in paid hours per resident day, direct care: IHA, 3.42; NHA, 3.42; VIHA — again, in brackets, 2011 — 3.51.

G. Gentner: You don't know if these are the actual or if these are projected?

G. Gentner: Can the minister explain "close to actual"? I mean, actual is actual, hard numbers, but close to actual…. Are we talking about half an hour or…?

Hon. G. Abbott: We don't have that information with us, but we'd be happy to try to get it for the member.

G. Gentner: Is there an actual number for staffing levels for the Fraser Health Authority?

G. Gentner: Yet he cannot provide those. He's got all the other numbers except for the fastest-growing and largest health authority in the province, and it's not here today. Do I have that correct?

Hon. G. Abbott: That is correct. We do not have that number with us at the moment. I committed to getting it to the member as soon as possible. If we should get that number today, in fact, I'll interrupt regular proceedings to advise him of it.

G. Gentner: I have numbers here on residential facilities, 2007-2008. It was done for us, through an FOI. The numbers on individual total hours worked per resident day are quite astounding. There's quite a difference, depending on what retirement home, so to speak, you are at.

For example, let's look at one that comes to mind in the Fraser Health Authority, Hilton Villa: 1.47 in '05, 1.47 at the end of '05. Of course, we have Hilton up to 2.22. Now, does that fit within the standard? That's just one example of many. Can the minister explain that?

Hon. G. Abbott: Those numbers will vary according to the acuity and the mix of the patients that are there. If there are a lot of residents with very difficult chronic conditions that require more intensive service, then the number tends to go up. If it tends to be a lower-acuity group, then the numbers will tend to go down.

G. Gentner: Is acuity related to waiting lists? I mean, who decides has a higher acuity, and where do they go?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll take a moment and just try to explain how the system works, at least from a layperson's perspective, like the Minister of Health's.

What occurs if an individual or a family member has an apprehension that some level of supportive care may be necessary? Typically, what occurs is that a comprehensive assessment will be made of the individual's condition. The nurse, in assessing, will look at a range of mental and physical skills and try to assess what the appropriate level of care should be.

For example, if the individual still retains a lot of physical and mental strength, then it may be sufficient to continue to live independently in the home with home care appended. If there are issues which would make it appropriate or beneficial for the individual to move into assisted living, then that would be the case. Then, if they require 24-7 complex care, residential care would be the appropriate place for that to be provided.

The health authorities and the nurses who specialize in this area, the case managers, will look at the individuals and identify what level of care they need. Once that's determined, they try to find the first appropriate unit for the individual.

We have seen, actually, some pretty good progress since 2001 in this area. In 2001 people were waiting as long as a year for placement in an appropriate facility. That wait time has now been reduced, on the low end, to 30 days in some health authorities and, on the high end, to 90 days in health authorities. Tremendous progress has been made in respect of that.

G. Gentner: Just one last question on direct care hours: can the minister explain the number of nursing plus care aide hours per resident per day?

Hon. G. Abbott: Care, by and large, in residential care facilities is provided by a mix of residential care aides, licensed practical nurses and registered nurses. The numbers that I cited to the member earlier would include all three of those.

G. Gentner: I appreciate that, because it bears a lot of light onto what our standards are.

Now, could the minister explain to me what the standard is relative to residents in long-term care homes regarding how many times a week they're bathed?

Hon. G. Abbott: The standard I'm advised is a minimum once a week, but there will be some variation. The skin conditions and other issues may come into play in respect of occasions that bathing is provided in residential care.

G. Gentner: Can I ask the minister how many times a week he has a bath or shower?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yeah, the member may be trying to make some kind of clever point here, but I think that his question is inappropriate.

G. Gentner: Does the minister believe that one bath a week is sufficient for an LTC person?

Hon. G. Abbott: That will depend on the best advice of the clinicians that are involved. As I've said to the member, the minimum is once a week, but obviously, there will be variations to that depending on the skin conditions and perhaps other medical conditions.

We are talking here of individuals who are in residential care, not in assisted living. In assisted living one is living independently with occasional supports. In an assisted-living unit there's typically a supported shower. We're talking about residential care, I presume here around the numbers, and the minimum is once a week. But depending on what the patient need is, or depending on what the skin conditions of the individual may be, that may vary.

G. Gentner: I'm not ashamed to say that I shower once a week and some days, possibly even today, I do it twice.

Therapeutic bathtubs — each long-term care facility must have one. How often are lifts inspected?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm advised that in most facilities that we'd be aware of, there would be routine inspections for safety and so on of the devices.

G. Gentner: Going back to a former question, how does the ministry know that a resident gets at least one bath a week?

Hon. G. Abbott: Each of the health authorities has quality assurance programs. They have inspectors who look at records in respect of these things, and of course, the health authorities and their inspection officers respond to complaints when people feel that an inappropriate level of care is being provided. This is an integrated system of quality assurance, and I think it works quite well.

G. Gentner: I'm not going to belabour this forum at this time. There's no time. I could deliver many letters where families of seniors in long-term care homes believe they're not getting at least one bath a week. I would suggest that the minister take a harder look at that. I think it's a major concern to many.

One house in particular…. I'll name it on the record — Dover House in Nanaimo. Please take a look at that one. I've received several inquiries relative to the poor standards of delivery of bathing and sanitation to the seniors living there.

Basically, on the administration of medications, who really has the jurisdiction? I'm expecting a quick answer. Does the minister hear examples of non-certified employees administering drugs?

Hon. G. Abbott: That has to be done by a qualified medical professional who has that within their scope of practice. That would, in these instances, likely include licensed practical nurses, registered nurses or pharmacists.

G. Gentner: So those administering medications are all trained in these facilities, and if nurses have the authority, then one would assume that you would need at least three nurses at each facility to deliver appropriate medications, knowing that some medications are stretched throughout a 24-hour period.

How does the ministry know that the administering of medications is being properly conducted? There are a number of cases where we're hearing that in the need of expediency and fiscal prudence, so to speak, instead of administering drugs maybe twice a day, some residents are receiving it only once a day. How does the ministry check up on some of the mispractices?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, this goes to the question of quality assurance. If the member is getting letters, I hope the member can either refer them on to me or refer them on to the applicable health authority. I'm sure there is some beneficial action produced by providing them to the opposition, but it is actually the health authorities, in particular the licensing officers of the health authorities, who should know that information and who should investigate suggestions or allegations that meds are not being provided appropriately.

If that were the case, that would be a problem. So obviously, we want to hear about any such apprehensions and investigate them and, where appropriate, take the action that is warranted by that. That could include things as serious as suspension or termination of contracts.

G. Gentner: I gather that it's done on a complaint basis. For many, that may be too late. I have so many questions on this issue. Perhaps I'll send a letter to the minister. Hopefully, he can respond in a timely manner.

There seem to be reports that people are being wrongfully medicated because there's not proper manual attention to that resident. Therefore, sedation is a way of dealing with it.

Can the minister explain to me how many deaths at private care homes, or any care home, are attributed to dehydration?

Hon. G. Abbott: We're not aware of any instances where death has been a product of dehydration. I expect that had such an unfortunate event occurred, we likely would have been advised of it by the coroner's office. But staff present here are not aware of any instances of that nature.

G. Gentner: Over-occupancy. Briefly, how does the ministry explain…. I have one here called Dover House again. It had more residents than it was allowed on their business licences, with one lady housed in a room in the basement. How frequent is that? How many reports is the ministry receiving where some of the long-term care facilities are overhoused?

Hon. G. Abbott: While we're trying to get some information, I wonder if the member would advise whether Dover House, I think he termed it, is a publicly funded facility.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member may wish to provide me with the correspondence he has around Dover House. We don't have information in respect of Dover House specifically here, at least not at this point. We're probably looking for it. But if it is a private facility, nevertheless it will be a licensed facility of, I think, the Vancouver Island Health Authority. I think the member said it was in Nanaimo. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Abbott: So it's a private facility in Nanaimo. They would be subject to the standards of the health authority in respect of its licensing by VIHA. If a complaint has been tendered with respect to Dover House, and we're trying to get the information on that, then it would be the role of the licensing officers to determine whether that complaint had validity.

G. Gentner: When inspectors investigate facilities, do they actually do an occupancy count? Do they go around and see if there are hallway beds, etc.? Is that done?

Hon. G. Abbott: The short answer to the member's question is yes. They do look at the numbers that are present within a facility and ensure that they don't have occupancy beyond what they are licensed for. There are routine inspections undertaken, and there are also inspections that may be prompted by generation of a complaint.

G. Gentner: Could the minister explain what a routine inspection is? Is it every month, every year?

Hon. G. Abbott: Generally, the timing will depend on what the licensing officers witnessed on their previous visit to the facility. If there had been issues that had come to the attention of a licensing officer during a visit that required remediation, or if generally the record of infractions was higher in the facility than average, then the visits would be more frequent. If the facility had an unblemished record for a long period of time, then the visits would be less.

G. Gentner: Would the minister agree that if you had more staff, you'd have more frequent investigations?

Hon. G. Abbott: The investigations are always followed up on. The number of staff doesn't determine the number of investigations. The number of complaints determines the number of investigations.

G. Gentner: That's what I want to hear. I don't really like the response because it's all complaint-driven, and it's a question, I suppose, of how vigilant the ministry is in detecting some of the difficulties or problems that are occurring in some of these homes.

How does the ministry determine whether residents are actually satisfied with the food they're receiving? I'm not talking here about nutrition per se, but how often does the ministry conduct surveys independent of the care provider as to whether or not residents are happy with the food?

Hon. G. Abbott: Food quality and satisfaction is one of the accountability measures for the health authorities. I expect that they would be looking at that issue at least annually and, again, where there have been problems in the past, presumably more often.

G. Gentner: So food quality inspections are basically driven by each health authority. But the food quality could be very different from one health authority to another, so how does the ministry ascertain a standard throughout the whole ministry?

Hon. G. Abbott: In addition to the work that is undertaken by the health authorities in terms of their accountabilities around food services, the province also did a food service audit in respect of — among other things — long-term care facilities.

The first of those audits, the safe food handling audit, was released in September 2007 with the health authorities receiving an excellent rating on an overall score of 91.3 percent. Patients and families at 149 facilities were surveyed, and the response rate among long-term care residents was 86.8 percent.

G. Gentner: Interesting figures. But the survey didn't include fridge temperatures. They weren't regularly checked and are not being recorded properly.

What assurance can the minister give that they will be properly inspected at all B.C. care facilities, private and/or public?

Hon. G. Abbott: I can advise the member that the licensing officers look at a broad range of issues in the licensing process, including issues like the temperatures at which refrigerators are maintained in those facilities. Where there is a deviation from recognized norms, those issues tend to be written up as infractions which must be remediated, and they are.

In terms of the food audits. Again, for the first one I mentioned, based on 149 facilities that were looked at, the score was 91.3 percent. In 2007 that score improved to 93.7 percent. As one would predict, there was some range across the scores, but the average was very good.

G. Gentner: Just briefly, can the minister explain to me: was this survey, this audit, contracted out, and by whom? Or was it done internally?

Hon. G. Abbott: The development of these audit tools and processes, in partnership with the health authorities, involved Steritech, the company chosen to develop the safe food handling and audit tool, and FHG International, the company chosen to develop the food services satisfaction and nutritional adequacy audit tools.

G. Gentner: Well, I visit many facilities. Having been involved in the restaurant business, the thing that occurred to me was that a lot of cooks simply aren't wearing hairnets. I don't know how you're going to ensure that that type of sanitation and cleanliness is upheld. There seems to be a real problem, I believe, in the delivery of food in our services to seniors.

Changing the subject, many of the bedridden and wheelchair-bound residents are not receiving range-of-motion exercises. Muscles in their arms and legs are becoming tight, and they are pulling up into fetal-like positions because of it. How does the ministry ensure that residents are receiving proper motion exercises?

Hon. G. Abbott: The value of estimates is that one learns things that one didn't know before around issues like hairnets in food preparation.

In the case of British Columbia, there is no law requiring hairnets. I understand that people in the food preparation business either have to tie their hair back or have their hair covered with a hat or some other form of cover. But there's no legal requirement for a hairnet.

In terms of the member's latter comment or question, he is articulating what I would term a sweeping generalization about the management of care needs within facilities. He says — and he hasn't provided us with a source yet, but I'm going to ask him to do that — that the elderly are being ignored and that as a consequence of that, they are stiffening up into the fetal position, etc.

Again, it is very difficult to respond to generalizations of that sort. Perhaps the member can tell us from whence he has come upon the idea that people are ignored like that. That's probably one way of starting the conversation on this.

G. Gentner: I will provide the minister with some documentation. I can certainly assist him. It's not necessarily rampant. It may just be a one-off, but I've seen other instances like it. This opens a discussion as to what the standards are relative to inspections. I know that you do the routine, and you can't catch all of the abuses. But these things sort of happen.

I'm going to move quickly into recreation therapy. It's somewhat relative to the issue asked earlier. What is the ratio of recreation staff per resident?

Hon. G. Abbott: We don't have numbers around the number of staff involved in providing recreation in residential care.

G. Gentner: Does the minister have any idea how many hours per week a resident receives in recreational activities? I'm not talking just staring at a television. There's got to be some recommendations or reports.

Hon. G. Abbott: Is the member inquiring about residential care or assisted living or both?

Hon. G. Abbott: In a residential care facility, again, where typically the acuity or complexity of the patient is very high, each residential care patient will have their own personal care plan. If appropriate, that care plan may include recreation of sorts, but it is very difficult to generalize in respect of a very complex and diverse population.

G. Gentner: A generic question just for the record. Does the minister believe that recreation is a very essential part of the quality of life, regardless of age?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, I would. Again, when one says "regardless of age," I'm presuming that would include 15-year-olds that are inactive, and it would include 95-year-olds who may be entirely active and living independently. Recreation is important to everyone in society. That is why we have developed the ActNow B.C. program, to make British Columbia the most active jurisdiction on the face of the earth by 2010.

G. Gentner: Well, I asked the question. I'm not trying to be funny here. When you look at the ads offered by private providers and even public, they do mention recreational activities available. Has the ministry done a study to ascertain how much money is spent per capita on recreation in the long-term care facilities?

G. Gentner: Relative to staffing, the B.C. Care Providers Association, in a letter to the minister dated April 28, 2008:

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, I do recall the letter from the B.C. private care providers. We fairly relentlessly hear arguments from the private care providers that acuity levels have been rising in relation to both assisted-living facilities and residential care facilities. I expect there's probably some truth in that.

I expect that as our society ages, as we see increasing numbers of frail elderly seniors in the population, those things change. Certainly, acuity levels have changed since 2001. What we undertook, and I believe it was entirely the right thing to do in 2001, was to put access to residential care on a needs basis — that is, we are trying to provide residential care and, at a lesser level, assisted living to those people who actually require it.

I presume the member would support that. It would be, I think, foolish if not egregious public policy to have a system where higher levels of care were provided to individuals who didn't need that care. If we are seeing people inappropriately or not correctly assessed and have a residential care space occupied by someone who didn't really need it, that means that someone who really does need it is not getting it.

The reason why we have gone to a rigorous assessment model is to try to ensure that the right individual gets the right level of care that they need. That's important, and I think it is absolutely the right thing to do.

I think that by a more rigorous management of cases and by the provision of additional units, as we have talked about at some length earlier, we have seen the time from assessment to assignment to a particular residential care or assisted-living facility reduced from one year, when we took office, down to between 30 and 90 days, for introduction into that facility. So I think that's an improvement. Is it perfect? No, but it's certainly an improvement.

Again, when we look across the continuum of home care, home support, where we've moved from $404 million to $646 million — to the huge growth in annual expenditure for assisted living, which really didn't exist when we took office, to residential care…. We talked about that number earlier, close to a 20 percent increase over time.

If you put all those together, back in 2001-2002 — and this is the actual — the total was $1,570,900,000. The actual in 2006-2007 was $2.6 billion. Projected for '07-08 — and that number will be firmed up soon — is $2.122 billion, and it will be even larger the following year.

Do the private care providers have an argument to make? Yes, I think they do. We don't dismiss that argument. We take it seriously. Are there challenges that flow from the aging of our society? Absolutely, there are. That's why we're making the changes we have.

G. Gentner: Back to the staffing hours per resident. The one authority that I still haven't received information from, of course, is the Fraser Health Authority. Could the minister just let me know whether or not that standard is below the standards of the rest of the authorities, or would he suggest it's higher?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think we canvassed this earlier, and I noted to the member that we would get that to him as soon as possible. That may be later today, or it may be next week.

G. Gentner: I've spent some time corresponding with the assisted-living coordinator responsible for complaints at the assisted-living office, which opened an interesting discussion on the act itself. The health and safety standards do require operators to ensure that they're appropriately trained to respond to emergencies. It's also up to each operator to determine the exact nature of emergency response — CPR, etc.

Now, staffing levels are not legislated. The standards require operators to ensure staffing levels are sufficient to meet the hospitality service needs of residents and deliver the personal assistance services offered.

Just for the record, can the minister explain to me what is sufficient, and how is it determined?

Hon. G. Abbott: We're not quite sure what the member is asking for in his question, though I'm certainly well familiar with assisted living, with the assisted-living administrator.

People who are in assisted living are basically living independently in a suite or studio apartment that is provided to them. They have within that studio apartment their own sanitation facilities. Typically, they'll have a small stove or a microwave to make their own breakfast if they wish. They have a range of amenities. They get two meals a day. They get weekly housekeeping services. As required, they get home care assistance. But they are living independently, and that's important to note.

It's not clear to me and it's not clear to those who are advising me here exactly what the member is asking.

G. Gentner: I'm going to move off that question, because time is of the essence, and I'm not going canvass it much further. I've got piles of questions here and members who want to ask questions.

I want to talk quickly about the transparency of hazard ratings of care providers. On February 12 the minister said that B.C. plans to follow Ontario's lead and routinely release inspection reports. It was to happen in a matter of weeks. It's now three months. I know there's now something up here.

On March 3 on CTV the minister said that all inspection reports will be put on the Internet for all to see. I'd like to have the minister explain what they really are. Are all inspection reports that go up unsanitized?

Hon. G. Abbott: I don't know what the member speaks of as unsanitized, and I don't know whether, when he's saying unsanitized, he's referring to Ontario or British Columbia.

Just so the member understands and those who |will read these debates understand, in the system of licensed inspections that we currently have in the province of British Columbia, if on a routine or complaint-

driven inspection a licensing inspector should come across an infraction in terms of — and the member mentioned it earlier — the temperature at which the refrigeration unit is kept or an infraction in terms of the system of distributing medications or any number of other areas….

If the licensing officer sees an infraction and believes that remedial action is required in respect of that infraction, an infraction notice is written up. Remediation is set out to meet that infraction, and then there is a subsequent follow-up by the licensing officer to ensure that the infraction has been resolved.

In British Columbia when the licensing officer goes into a residential care facility and sees an infraction, they sometimes are obliged to put what is termed a high-hazard rating on the facility. It might be a high-hazard rating that is produced by a failure to do a bookkeeping entry which was entirely unrelated to patient care. Nevertheless, that infraction produces this high-hazard rating. As a consequence, there might be apprehensions about physical hazards which don't in reality exist.

In British Columbia there are high-hazard, medium-hazard and low-hazard ratings. As I said, there is often, at least, what is an intuitive disconnect between the expression "high hazard" and what that actually means in terms of the context of the facility.

I just don't find that to be a particularly useful way in which to characterize hazards. If one goes to the Ontario website in these matters, what one would see in terms of the disclosure around the information would be the health authority, the name of the facility within the health authority, its location and a summary of the infraction that occurred and the remediation that occurred and at what date.

It becomes transparent and useful to the user or the family of the user. They are better able to understand what in fact the hazard rating meant and doesn't leave itself open to suggestions that an inflammatory label has been attached to something that's not inflammatory at all.

I've asked staff to look at producing a different rating system than the one that currently exists. We've not formed the conclusion that we're going to necessarily go to what exactly Ontario has, but I think that what I've seen from the Ontario model is better than what we have in British Columbia.

It may be, in the final analysis, that portions of Ontario and perhaps portions of the British Columbia system might be part of some permutation that becomes the system for assessing hazard. We will be looking very carefully at all of the options around cataloguing hazard, and we will be putting in place a system that provides the best information and the most transparent information to the people of British Columbia.

G. Gentner: So can the minister give me some estimate of time when these will be posted on the Web?

Hon. G. Abbott: It will be on the Web when the system has been fully developed and is operational.

G. Gentner: Has the ministry levied a financial fine against any residential care home that operates under the jurisdiction of the Community Care and Assisted Living Act?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm not sure whether we can be definitive about this. The staff assembled are not aware of any instance where a fine has been levied under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act.

It is far more common in instances where there has been a breach of the standards set out by contract that the remedy would be either a suspension or a termination of contract or, in some cases, replacement of the facility administrator by a health authority–appointed administrator. There are a range of steps which can be taken, but we're not aware of any where fines have been involved.

G. Gentner: Section 33: "(1) A person who contravenes section 5, 6, 18 (2) or (3) or 26 (1) of this Act or a term or condition attached to a licence commits an offence. (2) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable to a fine of up to $10,000."

Has there been any facility that has contravened the act and committed an offence in the last couple of years?

Hon. G. Abbott: We will be seeking the definitive answer to the member's question. However, the aim of the act is not to be punitive; it is to try to assure quality of care to the patients. That is why, as I said in my previous answer, the remedies tend to be more non-monetary. They tend to be ones that go to replacing administration, suspending or terminating contracts — that sort of thing.

G. Gentner: Well, they are monetary in that back in October 2007, results of a quality of service review launched by VIHA relative to the events at Beacon Hill Villa were released and were quite damning, if not remarkable. The review team made 13 recommendations, including an appointment of VIHA.

There were no penalties there, and now we hear that we're only going to have an administrator appointed for a short time. But on February 29, 2008, VIHA announced the administrator position will be extended to August 3, 2008, for a total of ten months.

So why was there no penalty administered against Retirement Concepts, in this instance?

Hon. G. Abbott: I expect the answer to the question is that while the financial position of the treasury might

be improved by $10,000 by the levying of a fine in that instance, it would not necessarily result in improvements to patient care. The appointment of the administrator and the other steps that were taken in relation to the Beacon Hill infractions that were uncovered by the licensing officers were intended to proactively improve the conditions for the residents.

G. Gentner: Can the minister name other administrators that have been appointed by the health authorities during this period of poor administration by the private provider?

G. Gentner: Can the minister explain how many and give me the names of those facilities?

Hon. G. Abbott: We'll have to see whether there are other instances, but one we know of was the appointment of an administrator at Summerland by the Interior Health Authority.

G. Gentner: At Summerland the minister had said that he'd consider minimum staffing levels. Can he explain what they are?

G. Gentner: My understanding…. I don't have the documentation right in front of me, but it was from a local newspaper that maybe took the minister out of context. It suggested that because of the problems with this particular Retirement Concepts facility, there would be imposed minimum staffing levels. He doesn't recall any reference to that?

Hon. G. Abbott: Perhaps if the member can locate the newspaper article and I can see the remarks in context, I can assist him. I have no recollection of saying that in relation to Summerland, but perhaps the member can refresh my memory by giving me the article.

S. Fraser: Hello again to the minister and his staff. This will be a bit of a repeat, I guess, from previous estimates, but it's an ongoing issue.

The area of Qualicum and Parksville known as Oceanside probably has the largest percentage population of seniors in Canada. There is no primary health facility there for emergencies or for diagnostic services or anything — no public facility that's available.

As the minister knows, there are hospitals sort of surrounding it. We've got Comox. We have Port Alberni. We have Nanaimo. I'll take an average, but say it's 40 minutes' drive to get to any of those.

Considering the age of the population in the area and the importance of that first half hour of care, certainly with issues of stroke or heart attack and those sorts of things, that timing is very critical to get access to a facility that might help. Can the minister just clue me in? Is there anything further in the works? Are we any closer to having a public facility that can provide this level of service?

Hon. G. Abbott: We don't have immediate access to any recent discussions between Vancouver Island Health Authority and the communities of Parksville and Qualicum. We understand there may have been some discussions, but we need to follow up and find out what the status of those discussions is.

What we know is that VIHA has been looking at possible options and has entered a partnership relationship with Oceanside Physiotherapy and Work Conditioning Centre in Parksville to provide the Take-Heart cardiac rehabilitation exercise program. They formally announced the program on March 4, 2008. Letters were sent to physicians to announce the introduction of the program, which may be an option for cardiac patients. In January VIHA entered a partnership relationship with Oceanside Physiotherapy and Work Conditioning Centre in Parksville to provide the Take Heart.

We will follow up. If we don't get the information in a reasonable time here during estimates, we will advise by letter what the status of the discussions is around an urgent care or primary care centre for that area between VIHA and the communities.

S. Fraser: The issue has been one I've raised before, as I mentioned. I guess we're looking at time going by here, and we do have an example of…. It's almost a metaphor for where a lot of communities are going, because we have the level of senior citizens within the community that is already at a higher level than other communities, but other communities are on their way there. So I'm hoping that the minister would see this as an opportunity to maybe set an example for where we're going to have to go to provide adequate primary care for an aging population.

We have an opportunity here to maybe find a model that might work, because there are a lot of communities that are going to need to find that model in the next decade or two. So it would be a wonderful opportunity.

I guess the question I'd have, if the minister could check with his staff, is: what would be recommended in an emergency now? It's not exclusively a senior citizen issue, but if you're a senior who has a major health problem — we'll stick with the stroke or heart attack type of potentially critical problem — what's recommended for somebody, say, in Qualicum Beach who needs emergency service? What's recommended by yourself or your staff?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll give as much of an answer as I can here, recognizing that I'm going to have to get back to the member again with some more details.

At a kind of conceptual level, I don't have any quarrel at all with the member's submission around the age demographic of those communities. The member is

right. It is probably one of the oldest communities in British Columbia. There are a few in the Interior that are not far behind. It's one of the oldest communities certainly in British Columbia and I think also in Canada.

I agree with the member's submission, as well, around our need to develop a primary care model which particularly can reach out and address the chronic disease issues which often are precursors to more serious events like heart attacks or strokes in that aging population. Again, I have no disagreement with the member.

I also know that the local governments in Parksville and elsewhere have been very constructive in terms of their suggestions and proposals that have come to the ministry and to VIHA. I know those constructive proposals are being worked on. I can't advise the member at this moment on what the status of them is.

I think the model that has been suggested is a positive and constructive one. The member is right. As we move forward in time, the balance of society, in terms of aging versus young, is moving more and more to aging. Yes, we are. I am a big proponent of primary care, a more robust primary care model for the province — absolutely.

I appreciate the member's suggestion around Parksville-Qualicum, because those are areas where it would be good to see those models in place. I know in areas like White Rock…. White Rock has been the first community where we have built an integrated primary care collaborative. I thank the member for the suggestion around Parksville-Qualicum. That would be an appropriate place to be thinking about those things too, just because of the balance of age.

In terms of what you do when you have a serious event like a heart attack or stroke, the area is served by 911. I'm not sure off the top — maybe the member knows — whether it is advanced life support or basic life support available in Parksville-Qualicum. In a typical instance, a very serious condition like heart attack or stroke would precipitate movement by ambulance to the closest community hospital or tertiary care facility that can manage it.

In the case of Parksville-Qualicum, the patient would be moved as quickly as possible to Nanaimo, likely, to deal with that situation. Again, I'm not sure whether it's ALS or BLS, but one would never see a situation where a patient who had that critical care need….

They would not go to a primary care centre to get the work done. They would be ambulanced straight away, particularly if it's an ALS crew. They are very highly skilled paramedics who can provide that interim care probably better than a primary care centre.

We have more information coming in as we speak. The Parksville-Qualicum-Oceanside primary health care network is under development. I gather some 30 doctors are being engaged on this project with an initial target of 4,200 patients. There's some great news that the member can take back to his constituents in Parksville-Qualicum. The collaborative is being developed, and obviously lots of people are being engaged in preparing it.

N. Macdonald: I just have two questions. In estimates last year we discussed the need for a purpose-built ambulance station for Revelstoke. The minister is aware that Revelstoke paramedics have endured some very substandard facilities. Of course, services remained superb, but obviously, there's an urgency for the new station. The community has done its work with property.

I guess I would ask the minister to confirm that the funding is in place for the construction of the purpose-built ambulance station for Revelstoke for this year. I just ask the minister to put that on the record.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question. I'll just try to bring us up to date on this. If there's additional information, I'll advise the member by letter about the status of the project.

In late December 2007 the capital budget of $400,000 was approved for acquisition of land to build an ambulance station in Revelstoke. At a meeting of Revelstoke city council on Monday, January 14, 2008, Revelstoke council proposed that a city-owned piece of land be allocated for the construction of a BCAS ambulance station. The location meets BCAS operational requirements, and ARES determined that the asking price was appropriate.

BCAS has since submitted the necessary development application and rezoning application. I don't know what the status of those are, but presumably, they're in process.

A public information session was held January 31, 2008. The meeting, I understand, was productive, with BCAS addressing the concerns that were raised at the meeting. At the conclusion of the meeting individuals present supported the project moving forward.

Letters to nine first nations groups have also been sent by BCAS. The letters request any views regarding the potential impact of any specific aboriginal rights or interests, with all responses received on or before March 1, 2008.

Funding is under consideration for the construction portion of this for, possibly, '08-09.

N. Macdonald: We've met before, and the minister has recognized the need to move as quickly as possible with the ambulance station. I appreciate that, and we'll continue to work on that.

The second issue is one that the minister would again be familiar with. He's from Sicamous. He'll know that the population surge that comes in the summer there is similar to other communities.

Invermere's permanent population is dwarfed by the influx of Albertans most weekends and all summer. There can be ten times the number of seasonal residents and visitors relative to the permanent residents. The number of hospital beds has been identified as not adequate by the community. The emergency room that Invermere requires has not been funded again this year.

The mayor of Invermere and the community are on record as saying that the minister is going to need to act to make sure that the services needed by the community and by those who visit are in place.

Hon. G. Abbott: We don't have, unfortunately, an immediate update I can provide to the member with respect to Invermere. I do, though, want to say that I don't quarrel with the submission the member has made around Invermere.

Invermere is one of those communities in the southern Interior that has grown very, very rapidly. It is a remarkably attractive and popular destination area for tourism, but it's also grown dramatically in terms of its year-round population.

I've heard from the mayor and others about the importance of expansion of the hospital, and I do know that there are discussions ongoing with respect to that. I can't speak as to where it would fit in terms of the overall priorities across the province, but I certainly don't disagree with the member's assessment about how quickly Invermere is growing and the pressures that that rapid growth would bring on their hospital.

Just to close the loop in terms of Oceanside — Parksville, Qualicum. Nanaimo does have an ALS ambulance service, response time code 3. That's lights and siren from Parksville to Nanaimo Hospital in about 20 to 25 minutes.

The Chair: Minister, I know that the member was anxious to receive that information. However, I must remind the minister that using electronic devices in the House is not allowed. You are not permitted to do that while you have the floor.

The Chair: Thank you. It'll probably cost you later, at an appropriate time.

D. Routley: Perhaps the Chair would elaborate on what the cost would be at a later time?

D. Routley: I'd like to ask the minister about some extended care and seniors care issues in the Cowichan region. There are a number of homes where the families of residents are upset about the level of care for a variety of reasons, ranging from ratios of registered nurses to patients to ratios of care attendants to patients as well as food issues and cleaning issues.

In particular, at the Cairnsmore lodge, which is a VIHA building, it appears that there's a ratio of approximately 13 residents to one care attendant and that at any one time they only have one licensed practical nurse on duty. Does the minister think that's an acceptable level of staffing?

Hon. G. Abbott: I want to offer my abject apologies for my momentary lapse into the world of electronics. It's not an area that I'm normally even comfortable with. For me to be….

Hon. G. Abbott: Still have to pay. Well, I guess the jury's in on this one. It looks like I might be convicted here. So I do apologize for that.

Hon. G. Abbott: In terms of the member's question, I think we would need to know a lot more about this facility. We'd need to know what the composition in terms of the acuity levels of the residents are; what the mix of residents is in terms of ages, conditions, complexity, that sort of thing, before we could draw conclusions about whether this or that staffing level. There are some things we would have to validate.

I don't want to be unconstructive about this with the member. Anytime we have concerns expressed by residents that a facility is not living up to its contractual obligations, we take action. I'm glad to offer that up to the member. I can't form conclusions based on the minimal amount of information that I have in that question.

D. Routley: One of the problems people have with the service levels there in that facility is cleanliness. I've had numerous complaints from constituents, including some that come with photos of food carts and other equipment in the facility that are quite clearly unclean. Even in the photographic evidence you can clearly see the soil and dirt on these pieces of equipment.

This particular resident's family documented this because they had such frustration getting this cleaned. There was a sticky spot on the floor and food stuck to the tray that this gentleman's wife was using. When he brought that to the attention of the management, he was promised that it would be addressed post-haste, but after two or three weeks, again, there were no steps taken. The same soiled spots were still there on the floor and on the equipment. He went back to the management of the facility, complained again, and weeks later again the same dirty spots were there. He took these pictures, so it's quite clearly documented.

It points to failure to meet minimum cleaning standards. Does the minister have anything to offer the residents of those facilities as to how we can improve that situation?

Hon. G. Abbott: Could I request of the member to repeat the name of the facility? We didn't quite catch it here. Perhaps spell it, unless it's a very simple name. Could he advise whether it is an assisted living or residential or a mix, and whether it is public or private or a mix?

D. Routley: The name of the facility is Cairnsmore lodge. It is a VIHA facility, a public facility, and it's

Hon. G. Abbott: When any member or resident of a facility or their families or friends or others have apprehensions, concerns, complaints with respect to issues like cleanliness, I'm glad to receive those complaints and refer them on to the licensing officers, or they may wish to take them directly to the licensing officers. The licensing officers have an independent role within the system, and they work under the medical health officer for the health authority.

I'm happy to receive them and pass them along to the licensing officers, or alternatively they could provide them directly to the licensing officers for action. That's the way complaints are resolved. They're tendered. All complaints are followed up on, and if there's an issue there, then they may be written an infraction notice and be obliged to remediate the situation within a defined period of time.

D. Routley: I will provide the evidence that I was provided with by my constituent, and hopefully that can be addressed.

A question about some inspection reviews on a couple of institutions in my constituency. One is the Lodge on 4th. It's rated by the inspections as a high-risk facility, and its inspection rating was low. There have been complaints from patients' families, and the minister and I have discussed this in the past.

There were complaints from a family that the registered nurse–to-patient ratio of 1 to 27 seemed entirely inadequate, because the administration of medications was being compromised, in the view of the family of my constituent, and general practices seemed to be challenged to the point where the staff couldn't keep up to the demands.

Also, the Cerwydden facility is rated as high-risk, rated as a high-hazard facility, for a number of reasons. I wonder if the minister can let me know what's being done to address the issues in those facilities.

I presume that in terms of the Lodge on 4th, the member was referring to the long discussion that occurred with the family that had their mother in Lodge on 4th. Are we talking of the same issue?

The issue, as I understand it, is that there were concerns with respect to the staffing model at the facility. There had been quite extensive discussions between VIHA and the director of care at the Lodge on 4th, and quite extensive discussions between the director of care and families in respect of that.

I gather that the upshot of all of that is that VIHA is satisfied that the facility is complying with standards of care and practice in respect of their staffing model. The families may not be satisfied, however, and that's entirely possible. But it appears that there have been quite extensive discussions on staffing between VIHA, the director of care at the facility and the families. At least one family may not be satisfied with the outcome of that, but VIHA apparently is.

Oh, I see this note says that the family has publicly stated that they have no care concerns, no issues with staff or the facility at all. Presumably that is one that doesn't have issues. It sounds from the member's question that there are others who do.

In terms of Cerwydden Lodge we're trying to get more information on that for the member. In terms of these issues at Duncan, there's a new facility coming on stream later this year with, I believe, 160 units in it. That will certainly have an impact on alternatives for all of the residents in that area.

D. Routley: In fact, the note that was signed by the family was signed by the mother herself. The family took great exception to the fact that the management put that note in front of her and asked her to sign it. She's a very elderly person who would never complain in an official way. Her family took great exception to that measure being taken, and they still are unhappy with the level of care. So I think that the minister and I need to take that a little further, perhaps in a different venue.

To wrap up my time so generously allotted to me by the critic, I'd like to talk about the food issues when it comes to extended care facilities in the Cowichan Valley. The food for several of the extended care facilities is produced in the Cowichan Hospital. The Cowichan Hospital budget for food per patient is less than $3 per day. That's based on the hospital operating at capacity, but it is consistently over capacity. When the hospital is over capacity, the budget for food is not expanded, so less than $3 per patient has to go a lot further — sometimes 25 percent further.

We have the practice of diluting juices, of empty food carts by the time they reach the ends of the hallways of some of the facilities and of food measuring that puts patients in a difficult spot. In one case, the dietitian recommended minced vegetables for a patient. That was denied because it was too difficult to accurately measure the amount of food.

Is there any way that the minister can find more resources for food services in Cowichan region health facilities?

Hon. G. Abbott: Earlier today we canvassed the issue of food quality and adequacy in hospitals and extended care facilities. I outlined at that time what the processes were, who was involved in the audits, and so on. I guess the member could review that portion of Hansard to get the scores, and so on. The only thing I'd add to that is that if there are specific issues at that particular institution, as raised by the member, I'm glad to look into that.

We know that in a $14 billion health care system there's always room for improvement, and there might

well be in that case. I don't want to be concluding before I have all the information, but I'm glad to look into it if the member wants to provide further information.

H. Bains: I want to talk about a long-term care facility in our area, Newton Regency, a home care facility. My understanding is that there are about 86 temporary-funded beds and about 11 permanent-funded. Then there are about 30-some that are privately paid and unfunded.

There's a serious concern by the patients themselves and their families. They are being told now that because there are some new facilities opening up in White Rock and in north Surrey, they somehow will not get the funding that is needed to continue to run this facility. The patients are really upset, and the families are really upset.

Considering that we still have a shortage of those long-term care beds in the area, despite the fact that there are new ones opening up, can the minister comment on where the future lies for Newton Regency?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm glad to follow up on the member's submission. We don't have sufficient information around what may be guiding the Fraser Health Authority's decision-making with respect to that specific facility. I think that health authorities try to look at the quality of service that's provided within facilities and try to base their decisions on the contracting with specific facilities for paid beds based on that.

I'm glad to follow up, but it would be difficult for me to form any judgments about what Fraser Health Authority should or shouldn't do in respect of this particular facility, because I don't know the basis on which they've contracted. I don't know what details might be prompting the decision-making of Fraser Health Authority. But I'm glad to follow up for the member if he provides the information.

H. Bains: I think what the family members have been advised is that due to the opening of two facilities…. One is Laurel Place; another one is Rosemary Heights. As a result of that, they want to fill those facilities first. Therefore, the temporary-funded beds that exist at Newton Regency right now perhaps will not be funded any longer. That puts the patients and their family members in great discomfort.

The patients are happy there, the family members are happy there, and this is the only facility in the area. Otherwise, they will be moving to north Surrey or to Rosemary Heights. This is the facility they'd like to stay in. Many of them have actually openly said that they have checked around all the different facilities out there, and this is the facility where their elders or their loved ones actually do feel comfortable. They want to stay there.

I would ask the minister for whatever the minister can do to make sure that this facility continues to stay open and continues to get funding, because we still need those beds so that the patients are happy and the family members are happy.

Hon. G. Abbott: At the member's request…. Perhaps he could provide me with a short letter outlining the concerns of his constituents, and I commit to him to following up with Fraser Health Authority.

I don't know whether there is any basis for apprehension on the part of the residents or not. I don't know where this particular facility fits in terms of the plans for Fraser Health. They may be entirely in line with the plans for Fraser Health. I just don't know. We'd have to follow up in order to provide the member with better detail.

H. Bains: I just want to reiterate what the family members have been saying. They are put in very, very uncomfortable…. In fact, they're quite anxious that their loved ones who didn't like different places where they tried to take them to….

This is a facility that is well run, and people like being in there. They are close by where their loved one lives. The family members really are at this time put on pins and needles thinking that their mother or father or their elder could be moved, despite their objection.

So maybe the minister could tell us: if the family member or the patient does not wish to move to another facility, can we get the commitment that they will not be forced to?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, we just don't have the depth of detail around this situation to be able to provide definitive comment on it. I'm glad to follow up and provide the member with the best information we can, but we don't have enough information here to be definitive in the way the member would like at this point.

J. Brar: I would like to follow up with the line of questioning. The member for Surrey-Newton asked about the Newton Regency Care Home. I understand the minister may not be able at this point in time to respond to the specific situation of this facility, but I would like to ask a broad policy question.

The question is this. There are 76 temporary beds occupied at this point in time at Newton Regency Care Home, and there have been a couple of other new facilities built which are empty at this point in time. People who are living in that facility are very, very concerned that they are going to be moved to the new facilities.

Can the minister give us the assurance, at least at this point in time, that no one will be forced to move against the wishes of the individual as well as of their family? That's a simple policy question.

Hon. G. Abbott: We're trying to understand the issue at the Newton Regency care facility. The information that I have is that there are 11 permanently funded beds at Newton Regency. There were another 87 that were funded temporarily as the Fraser Health Authority awaited the opening of a new facility in the same neighbourhood called Suncreek Village. It's opening later this year, as I understand it.

We would have to engage with Fraser Health on whether…. I don't know whether the member's concerns are with the 11 permanently funded or with the 87 temporarily funded or both. I am presuming that contractually, at some point, the funding arrangement ends because it was a temporary contract with Newton Regency, and at some point a new funding arrangement kicks in with Suncreek Village. I presume that has been the basis of their contractual relationship.

How this is going to work in terms of the residents…. Presumably, the 11 residents that have been permanently funded will remain at Newton Regency, and the funding for 87 will move to Suncreek, because that's the basis of their contractual agreement. I presume that most of the residents will want to move where the funding goes. I would be speculating to go beyond that.

J. Brar: Just to clarify, we are basically talking here about 76 people who have at this point in time occupied temporary beds. We understand the situation about 11 permanent, but we're asking a question about the 87 temporary, and at this point in time 76 beds are occupied out of the temporary list.

Here is a petition by the family. I just want to put that on the record for the minister. The minister commented just a few seconds ago that the family would probably want to go to a new facility. That's not the wish of the family as per this petition.

I would like to just read a paragraph from that: "Through the family counsel we have been advised that the Fraser Health Authority may contact some or all of us and offer beds for our family members and friends at another facility. Please be advised that none of us want to accept a bed elsewhere. We are very happy with the care at Newton Regency, and we do not want to put our family members and friends through the stress of a move."

So that is the petition signed by the family members and the resident of that facility.

In addition to that — those are the wishes of the families — I would like to mention a recommendation by the B.C. Medical Association, particularly a recommendation about the health of seniors. I would like to quote that: "Patients should be cared for as close as possible to their family and community support network." That's the recommendation made by the B.C. Medical Association.

To summarize, the B.C. Medical Association is saying they should be close to the families. Families are saying they want to keep those seniors there. The new facility, by the way — just to clarify to the minister — is not that close; it's not in the neighbourhood of this facility. So families want them there, and the B.C. Medical Association recommends that they should be close to family. I would like to see what the minister's response is on that.

Hon. G. Abbott: The delightful thing about estimates is that if you keeping asking the question long enough and information keeps coming in, eventually you may get an answer that gives you greater satisfaction.

Again, it's important to note that we are not talking about a new facility far removed from Surrey-Newton. This is a new facility, Suncreek Village, that will be opening in the same neighbourhood that I understand the Newton Regency care facility exists. So it's the same neighbourhood. No one's being asked to relocate to another part of the province or anything like that. It's close to home.

Members will feel even better about this. In fact, I will be putting this into letters to the members here shortly. Just to ensure we know: "FHA is funding 87 temporary beds at the Newton Regency to help meet demand while more modern facilities are being built in Surrey." So that's Suncreek Village and others. "There are a number of new facilities being developed, and in the interim FHA will continue to operate temporary beds in a number of facilities, including Newton Regency." So that continues.

This is the important part. "As new beds open up in new facilities, FHA will fill those beds rather than using the temporary ones at Newton Regency. FHA also advises there are no plans to move patients from Newton Regency at this point. Any further questions can be directed to FHA's government and community relations office at 604-587-4610." Operators are standing by. "This contact information was also sent as part of the information FHA sent to all Surrey MLAs."

So the answer to the question is — and I'm sure the members can take enormous comfort in this — that as the new facilities open up and there's an opportunity, people will…. If they are at Newton Regency and they wish to move to the new facility, they can. Alternatively, if they're not looking for those units, others, presumably referred from around Surrey-Newton, will be moving in there. It will be a gradual phasing-out over time. People will not be obliged to move.

M. Sather: Last summer Golden Ears Seniors Village, operated by Retirement Concepts in Maple Ridge, was non-compliant in every area of the Fraser Health Authority's guidelines. "We had issues with staffing levels, patient nutrition and the resident care plan," said Michael Bernard of Fraser Health. Family members of residents report witnessing residents abusing one another and no staff there to intervene and residents left in dirty diapers and soiled clothes.

I'm informed that a licensing inspector was at the facility last Friday for an inspection. Can the minister advise me what the results of that inspection were?

Hon. G. Abbott: We don't have reports that were concluded as recently as last Friday. That's not the way the system works. But I'm sure that the member will want to pick that point up as we continue these estimates later.

I move the committee rise, report resolution of the Ministry of Environment and progress on the Ministry of Health and ask leave to sit again.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.