Hansard — Wednesday, May 28, 2008 p.m.

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Statements		13027
	Prince George firefighters and Canfor millworkers
	C. James

Introductions by Members		13027

Tributes		13027
	Brian Greer
	Hon. M. de Jong

Speaker's Statement		13028
	Rules for public bills in the hands of private members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		13028
	Farm Workers Fairness Act, 2008 (Bill M218)
	C. Puchmayr
	Funding Stability for Boards of Education Act, 2008 (Bill M219)
	D. Cubberley
	Accountability Act, 2008 (Bill M220)
	L. Krog
	Residential Tenancy Act Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill M221)
	J. Kwan
	Home Inspection Act, 2008 (Bill M222)
	D. Thorne

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		13030
	Urban forest stewardship initiative
	J. Horgan
	West Vancouver Youth Band
	J. McIntyre
	Zaklan farm
	H. Bains
	Gordon Greenwood Elementary School BumbleBeez
	M. Polak
	100th anniversary of Queen Alexandra Elementary School
	J. Kwan
	911 service in East Kootenays
	B. Bennett

Oral Questions		13032
	MRI waiting times in Interior Health Authority
	C. James
	Hon. G. Abbott
	A. Dix
	Mammography services
	D. Thorne
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Tree farm licence land removals in Interior B.C.
	B. Simpson
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Government response to tree farm licence land removals
	S. Fraser
	Hon. R. Coleman
	J. Horgan
	Government support for forest workers
	C. Trevena
	Hon. R. Coleman

Petitions		13037
	S. Fraser

Tabling Documents		13037
	B.C. Assessment, annual report, 2007, and audited financial statements for the period ended December 31, 2007

Petitions		13037
	J. Horgan
	B. Bennett
	J. Kwan

Tabling Documents		13037
	B.C. Lottery Corporation, letter from the chair of the board of directors

Petitions		13037
	N. Simons
	R. Austin
	D. Chudnovsky

Tabling Documents		13037
	Revised schedule I, fiscal year ended March 31, 2008
	Statement of 2007-2008 borrowings
	Hon. C. Taylor
	Labour Relations Board, annual report, 2007
	Hon. O. Ilich

Reports from Committees		13037
	Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, first report
	R. Fleming

Committee of the Whole House		13038
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 33) (continued)
	B. Simpson
	Hon. R. Coleman

Reporting of Bills		13043
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 33)

Third Reading of Bills		13043
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 33)

Committee of the Whole House		13043
	Social Workers Act (Bill 35)
	N. Simons
	Hon. T. Christensen

Report and Third Reading of Bills		13049
	Social Workers Act (Bill 35)

Committee of the Whole House		13049
	Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act (Bill 18) (continued)
	S. Simpson
	Hon. B. Penner

Reporting of Bills		13061
	Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act (Bill 18)

Third Reading of Bills		13061
	Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act (Bill 18)

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		13062
	Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)
	M. Sather
	Hon. G. Abbott
	C. Trevena
	B. Ralston
	C. Wyse
	K. Conroy
	G. Gentner
	D. Cubberley
	A. Dix

C. James: I'd like to take a moment in this Legislature to pay tribute to the people of Prince George and the firefighters who battled the massive blaze that broke out on Monday evening.

The fire — as we know, the largest in Prince George's history — consumed Canfor's plywood plant. Fire Capt. Mark Hill likened its sound to that of a jet engine taking off. At one point the fire threatened to surround the firefighters at the centre of the blaze, but owing to their training, bravery and skill, everyone escaped unharmed.

As we know, firefighters give of themselves so that we can all be safe, and their dedication and courage are extraordinary. We must also pledge our support not only for the firefighters but for the 285 Canfor workers who lost their jobs and now wonder what the future holds.

The Canfor plywood plant was a bright spot in an industry that's been hit hard. "It's devastating," said Gord Kay, a 32-year veteran. The Canfor plant must be rebuilt, and its workers must have a future in Prince George.

In this difficult time I would ask the government to join the opposition in offering Prince George workers and their families and their community our help and our full support in this time of need. The fire destroyed a plant, but it cannot be allowed to destroy the future and the spirit of Prince George forest workers.

Hon. R. Thorpe: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce a grade 12 student from Summerland Secondary School. KelsieRai Skoreyko is spending the day touring the Legislature, and I hope the House will join me in making her feel very welcome.

Also, I'd like the House to welcome my administrative assistant, Devon Stokes, to the House. Would the House please make both of them very welcome.

R. Chouhan: Today we have 90 students from my community's secondary school, Burnaby South Secondary. Thirty of them, I believe, are sitting in the gallery. With them are four wonderful teachers: Ms. Moore, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Cividino and Ms. Gonzelis. Please join me in welcoming them.

Hon. I. Chong: In the gallery today are a number of people who work in our Ministry of Community Services. Two in particular are new to our ministry. I would like to introduce Robin Grantner, who is a third-year political science student at the University of Victoria. She's working with the local government–first nation relations program. She's doing research on aboriginal governance.

Also, we have Ainslie Avery, who is graduating next week from the University of Victoria and has joined the local government department of advisory services as a program analyst. Joining them is a more long-term employee of our ministry, Grace Van den Brink, our program analyst, who is with the local government–first nation relations program. I hope the House will please make them all very welcome.

M. Farnworth: Watching from the constituency office today is my constituency assistant Brad West, who is celebrating his 23rd birthday. Upon telling me that, he also then proceeded to tell me that he feels old at 23. I told him that he would get no sympathy from me on that comment, nor any sympathy from any member of this House. But I did say that I'm sure every member of this House would wish him a very happy 23rd birthday.

J. Nuraney: I, too, want to welcome the students from Burnaby Secondary, and I would like the House to please once again offer them our warm welcome.

D. Routley: Would the House help me welcome my CAs Leanne Baird and Debra Toporowski and also Patty McNamara and her daughter Athena Maurer, who have brought along the youngest visitor I've ever had the honour of greeting in this House, young Linden Maurer, Athena's son. He's two months old.

A special welcome not only to that young man but to someone who I consider very dear, Betty Iverson. She's a volunteer in our office, and she cycles across town to volunteer and help the people of the Cowichan Valley every day. I really appreciate all the service that she gives to our community, so please help me thank her.

R. Fleming: With us in the gallery today is Robin Steudel, who is an active student at Simon Fraser University where she serves on the student society board as well as a number of boards of the university. She's with us here in the gallery, I believe. Would the House please join me in welcoming her here.

Hon. M. de Jong: I don't often introduce public servants to the House, not because I don't think they are worthy of our thanks and attention, but I find that they're generally very modest and don't wish to be singled out. That is certainly the case with respect to Brian Greer, who since 1992 has served a variety of administrations, governments, in the capacity of chief legislative counsel.

The Attorney General and I want to bring the House's attention to his presence here today. He has served with distinction, as I say, a variety of governments. He is that person who is responsible for providing counsel and advice around a wide range of issues — guidance and counsel with respect to the preparation of legislation, the laws by which we ask British Columbians to govern themselves. He has done so with distinction.

I know this sounds like one of those farewell speeches. He is not actually leaving the service of British Columbians and government, but he is stepping down from his demanding post as chief legislative counsel.

I wanted to take the opportunity today, on behalf of all members and all British Columbians, to say to Brian Greer — and to his family, who has lent him to us these past 16 years — thank you. The laws of this province are stronger, better because of the work Brian Greer has rendered. On behalf of all members, I want to thank him and pay tribute to him for the work he has done.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have had the opportunity to review Bill M215, the Campaign Finance Reform Act, 2008, which was introduced in the House by the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill.

The bill would require an expenditure of public funds, contrary to Standing Order 67, and is therefore out of order in the hands of a private member and will not proceed to second reading.

C. Puchmayr: I move introduction of a bill intituled Farm Workers Fairness Act, 2008, for first reading.

C. Puchmayr: This bill, through amendments to the Employment Standards Act, will introduce fairness back to the farm-working community and industry. It restores overtime pay, statutory holiday pay and minimum-wage protection.

This bill also reverses the atrocious trend of children as young as 12 working in industry in British Columbia with virtually no protection. It restores protection for those young people working in industry today.

I move that this bill be placed on the order paper for second reading after the next sitting of the House.

Bill M218, Farm Workers Fairness Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

D. Cubberley presented a bill intituled Funding Stability for Boards of Education Act, 2008.

D. Cubberley: I move introduction of the Funding Stability for Boards of Education Act, 2008, for first reading now.

D. Cubberley: It's my pleasure today to introduce legislation that will provide boards of education with greater certainty. This bill seeks to ensure that all children in British Columbia receive the educational program their board of education has approved for the year in progress.

Part of a good educational program is sound planning for the school year. Teachers have to prepare materials and strategies in advance of the school year. Boards of education must ensure that teachers, administrators and other educators are properly equipped to deliver the mandated program. Part of equipping our educators is ensuring that they have access throughout the course of the year to the resources committed and approved at the beginning of the year.

This bill will make it impossible to remove resources from boards of education once those resources have been duly approved. Planning, consistency and predictability are all vital to a successful education. This bill will ensure each plays its role.

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

Bill M219, Funding Stability for Boards of Education Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

L. Krog: I move that a bill intituled Accountability Act, 2008, be introduced and read a first time now.

L. Krog: The Accountability Act, 2008, introduces amendments to the Members' Conflict of Interest Act and the Lobbyists Registration Act that will extend conflict-of-interest laws and strengthen rules governing the activity of government lobbyists.

These amendments take into account the recently enacted Federal Accountability Act. Like the federal legislation, one of the bill's key commitments is to clean up lobbying and ensure that lobbying activities are carried out in an ethical and transparent manner.

The amendments also align with recent recommendations made by the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The amendments to the Lobbyists Registration Act provide clear rules to ensure lobbying is done ethically and transparently. They introduce a two-year lobbying ban on former ministers, senior political aides and deputy ministers and a two-year prohibition on all lobbying activities for people convicted of violating the Lobbyists Registration Act.

They establish clear reporting responsibilities, including monthly disclosure obligations for lobbyists, employers of in-house lobbyists, and public officials. The Information and Privacy Commissioner is granted expanded powers to conduct investigations.

The amended act protects the public interest by ensuring that British Columbians have access to adequate information about who is lobbying public officeholders and in what context. The Members' Conflict of Interest Act is renamed the Conflict of Interest Act and sets out clear conflict-of-interest and post-employment rules for public officeholders.

The amendments extend current conflict-of-interest laws to cover all government appointees. They also extend the two-year moratorium on former members of the executive council from accepting a contract or benefit from government to include deputy ministers.

Members of this House will recall the many commitments to openness and transparency made by the government. Somewhere along the way, these principles have been abandoned, much to the detriment of the integrity of this place and the interests of the people of the province of British Columbia. This act establishes a stronger, more open and transparent regime for the ethical conduct of lobbyists, public officeholders and former public officeholders in this province.

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

Bill M220, Accountability Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

J. Kwan: I move the bill intituled Residential Tenancy Act Amendment Act, 2008, be read a first time now.

J. Kwan: I'm very pleased to introduce the Residential Tenancy Act Amendment Act, 2008. Since the 2010 Olympic Games were awarded to Vancouver, over 1,300 single-room-occupancy units have converted to other uses, displacing long-term low-income tenants in the vicious cycle of shelters, homelessness and temporary living situations.

The uncertainty of having a place to stay for those at the margins of society should be dealt with as a human right. The human right to adequate housing is clearly defined by Canada's signing of the optional international protocols such as the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Since SROs represent the housing of last resort, this bill seeks to amend the Residential Tenancy Act to protect these units in this particular period. These SRO conversions have been the subject of the recent section 1503 complaint by three civil society organizations. The Geneva-based Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions supports tenancy protection prior to the hosting of mega-events.

The Residential Tenancy Act Amendment Act seeks to address these concerns to level the playing field and to ensure that the public interest always comes first. The principle underlying this bill is simple. It allows for rent protection for low-income tenants, for SRO residents, during this speculative period.

Every British Columbian should have the right to adequate housing, just as Miloon Kothari, the UN special rapporteur on housing, stated when he visited Vancouver in October of 2007.

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

Bill M221, Residential Tenancy Act Amendment Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

D. Thorne: I move introduction of the Home Inspection Act, 2008, for first reading.

D. Thorne: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce a piece of legislation that will help homeowners across British Columbia. This bill provides greater consumer protection for those homebuyers by prohibiting persons from inspecting a home without a licence and setting out the basic requirements for obtaining such a licence.

The purchase of a new home is the largest transaction most consumers will ever make, and the quality and durability of a home is integral to the consumer's physical, mental and financial well-being. Few homebuyers have the technical knowledge for a complete assessment of a new home or homebuilder, particularly

B.C. homebuyers hire home inspectors to tell them if their new home is a good, solid investment. Unfortunately, because B.C. still has no home inspection regulations, anyone can claim to be a certified home inspector. That's a very big risk for consumers.

This bill will establish a home inspection board, which will be responsible for licensing home inspections. The board will also establish standards for the education, training and experience requirements for home inspectors and adopt a code of ethics and standards of practice for licensed home inspectors.

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

Bill M222, Home Inspection Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

J. Horgan: I had the pleasure recently of meeting with Judith Cullington, Adam Taylor and Jeremy Guy of the urban forest stewardship initiative. Established by the Habitat Acquisition Trust, the UFSI is a partnership of individuals, organizations and government entities dedicated to conservation, restoration and sustainable use of greater Victoria's urban forests.

With an estimated population increase of approximately 33 percent over the next 20 years, our challenge will be to protect the living forests found in our community, old-growth remnants, backyard fruit trees, urban parks and trail systems, Garry oak meadows and treed boulevards. The UFSI is aiming to increase the public awareness of the benefits of urban forests and the importance of implementing land use planning to promote the sustainable development of our region.

As little information existed on the amount of urban forest within our region, a critical first step was to undertake a project to map the changes in tree cover and impervious surface area in greater Victoria. The goal was to start gathering quantitative data about the urban forests in our region, develop an estimate of the green infrastructure benefits provided by our urban forests and create a baseline that could be used to track future changes of the urban forest.

The results of the mapping project revealed that between 1986 and 2005, from North Saanich to Sooke we lost 8 percent of our overall tree cover. That's about 2,500 hectares, or six and a half times the area of Goldstream Provincial Park.

People in the capital region are increasingly aware of the role our urban forest plays in maintaining healthy and vibrant neighbourhoods.

I would like to congratulate and thank the USFI for doing a magnificent job in providing a baseline to assist communities in making smart planning decisions now to ensure that our urban forests are there in the future. To find out more, I encourage all those watching to visit www.hat.bc.ca and learn more about urban forest stewardship initiatives.

J. McIntyre: I'd like to pay tribute to a terrific fundraising event last Saturday night on behalf of the West Van Youth Band. It's a non-profit society with a long, successful history in the community. Since 1931 it's been providing excellence in music education for young people nine to 19 years. The graduates leave the program with a great appreciation of music, skill in playing an instrument and the experience of being part of this unique community band.

The youth band actually added a very special touch to the Premier's announcement last July of the $500,000 Spirit Square award for the atrium in West Van's new rec centre, which will be the new home of the band, in an innovative private-public partnership.

Last Saturday's big band cabaret and silent auction was held in the West Van arena. It was all decorated like a big nightclub. There was a huge dance floor and a stage for a 100-piece band. They put on just a terrific performance. They had everybody up dancing their shoes off.

They were accompanied by some great acts: the band Wednesday at Ernie's, a Blues Brothers act, and a stunning finale with Colin James — who, I have to add, is a constituent of mine. They ended the last set with a big band performance of Van Morrison's classic Into the Mystic. The parents and friends of the band members were all incredibly proud of a very professional performance, particularly by the soloists.

Before I can even pay tribute to them and to Doug Macaulay, their talented music director and band leader…. He appeared on the front steps of the Leg. yesterday with the Vancouver Firefighters Band, leading another great group of musicians. I just want to say hats off to Doug and a great team who worked countless hours to showcase the talented West Van youth. It was a night to remember.

H. Bains: In a world of escalating real estate prices, if your property is surrounded by new development, for most it is a dream come true. Most will sell or have it developed and retire to some beachside bungalow. Not George Zaklan.

The Zaklan family bought two ten-acre parcels of land in the 1920s from the Green Timbers forest reserve. This property is now surrounded on all sides by

new development. It is literally a breath of fresh air to drive by this green space in the middle of residential houses and industrial buildings.

The Zaklan family worked this farm for decades, pulling stumps and rocks and plowing fields so that they were able to raise animals and make a living off this land. Today when you drive by, you can still see cattle grazing and the original farmhouse, barns and outbuildings, which have been maintained perfectly. The family has planted and nurtured many native trees on the property to enhance the area and benefit our environment.

Despite George's intentions to continue maintaining this as farmland, our system in place will eventually force him out, and we will lose this green space. You see, Mr. Speaker, under our property assessment process each piece of property must meet the requirement to gain farm status. This land has two separate deeds. Back in the day, the property was one piece with just a cattle trail to access it. Today it is separated by 132nd Street, a very busy street in Surrey. This makes it incredibly difficult to transfer cattle to the west side of this farm.

Therefore, under our rules there are higher taxes for that piece of land, which George may not be able to pay. In order to pay, he must turn part of his land into a revenue-generating entity or sell — in either case, the loss of farmland. I urge this House to work with farmers such as Mr. Zaklan and find a way to preserve small farmers in the urban areas.

M. Polak: On Friday, May 30, Gordon Greenwood Elementary in Langley will gather to recognize a team of award-winning students. Members of the Gordon Greenwood BumbleBeez will celebrate their return from the global challenge round of the Reading Link Challenge, where they placed second ahead of teams from Kalamazoo, Michigan, and Seattle, Washington.

The Beez worked hard to get to this international reading competition, where students from grades 4 and 5 are asked to read a selection of novels about which they must answer trivia questions designed to test their knowledge about the assigned books.

After winning the Langley districtwide competition, the Beez went on to beat out 266 teams in order to advance to the global challenge round. As one of only two Canadian teams in the final, students Claire Bauer, Michelle Hong, Kaitlyn Lentsch, Breanna Owen, Colton Pearce, Jenny Song and Emmilee Wass celebrated their success by joining their first place counterparts from the Tri-Cities area to sing O Canada.

I know that the school's namesake, the late school trustee Gordon Greenwood, would be very proud of this impressive performance. I also know that he would want us to acknowledge the invaluable leadership role of Ms. Smitty Miller, the literacy coordinator for the Fraser Valley Regional Library. Together with the dedicated teaching staff at Gordon Greenwood, they have made reading come alive for their students.

It is a testament to the legacy of Mr. Gordon Greenwood that the trophy presentation for the BumbleBeez team will take place at a memorial assembly in his honour. Please join me in congratulating the Gordon Greenwood Elementary BumbleBeez team.

J. Kwan: Queen Alexandra of Denmark, born in 1844, was queen consort to Edward VII of the United Kingdom and Empress of India during her husband's reign. Prior to that she was the Princess of Wales from 1863 to 1901, the longest anyone has ever held that title. From 1910 until her death, she was the Queen Mother — being both the Queen and the mother of the reigning monarch, George V, of the United Kingdom — though she was more generally styled as Her Majesty Queen Alexandra.

It was in this era in this young province, long before seismic upgrading and the preservation of heritage values would become issues, that Queen Alexandra Elementary School was founded and named in her honour. This year is the 100th anniversary of this grade school, which has graduated so many in our constituency. It's located in the 1300 block East Broadway at the intersection with Clark Drive in East Vancouver.

The little one-room wooden schoolhouse on the northwest corner of Queen Alexandra School grounds opened its doors in September of 1908 as a division of the Vancouver–Mount Pleasant School, with Miss Caroline Baynes in charge of the 80 pupils enrolled that year. A class picture from that year showed little Hughie Bird, who became fire chief of the city of Vancouver.

The main building of Queen Alexandra was built during 1908 and opened in time for the 1909 school year. In 1933 children from the school joined the annual May Day parade to protest the high rate of unemployment. They marched all the way to Brockton Point in Stanley Park to hear speeches, and the banner of the school was in the papers the next morning. To this very day they still keep the progressive East Vancouver tradition alive. In 1948 a gymnasium and auditorium were added to the building.

Today I would like to ask all members of this House to join me in wishing the students, the teachers, the parents and the alumni of Queen Alexandra School a happy 100th birthday.

B. Bennett: On the night of December 17, 2007, Tammy Lee Ellis was shot to death in her Cranbrook home. Tammy's roommate witnessed that murder. She fled to another part of the House. She hid under the bed, and she frantically dialed 911 on her cell phone. To her absolute horror, she was unable to get through to the 911 dispatch centre.

This tragic and incredibly unsatisfactory series of events led Don Michalsky, a bear of a man with an iron will and a superhuman dedication and the father of

Tammy Lee Ellis, to take action. Mr. Michalsky is determined to honour his daughter's memory. He has been circulating a petition since December of 2007 that asks the provincial coroner to undertake an independent inquiry into the death of his daughter and, in particular, to find out why 911 service was not there for the victims of that crime.

Every day for the past five months, people from around the region have dropped off their petitions at my office in Cranbrook. Later this afternoon I'm tabling this petition with over 16,000 signatures, and Mr. Michalsky tells me there are several thousand more signatures signed electronically and also on paper that he has not been able to get in to me yet.

The sheer number of signatories to this petition illustrates the degree of anxiety over the reliability of 911 service where I live. I want to thank Don Michalsky for his perseverance in raising the profile of 911 emergency service in our area and for his outstanding dedication to the memory of his daughter Tammy. These are the people speaking — not the corporations, not the businesses, not the unions and not the political parties. These are the people who are concerned about 911 service in the East Kootenay.

I'm concerned as well. I have spoken in detail to the Solicitor General, who I have confidence in, and in that context I ask the government to ensure that we have 911 service in the East Kootenay that we can rely on.

C. James: Information produced by the Interior Health Authority and posted on their own website shows the government is failing to get a handle on unacceptable MRI wait times. The data shows there was absolutely no improvement for patients over the 2007-2008 fiscal year.

Can the Minister of Health explain why patients at Kelowna General were forced to wait up to 273 days for an MRI?

Hon. G. Abbott: One of the things I'm very pleased to advise the Leader of the Opposition is that when we came into office, there were nine MRI machines in the province of British Columbia. Today there are 19 MRI machines.

With respect to Interior Health Authority specifically, when we came into office in 2001, IHA had one…

Hon. G. Abbott: …mobile MRI to share across the Interior and north of British Columbia. Today we have three MRIs in Interior Health — a 333 percent increase in the number of MRI procedures as a result of that.

C. James: It appears the minister is just fine with the wait times for patients. Well, I can tell you that patients in Interior Health and across this province are not fine with the wait times that this government has.

Let's take a look at some more numbers. The wait time in Kelowna was as high as 273 days for an MRI. The Canadian Medical Association says the standard is 30 days. In Penticton the wait was 252 days — 222 days longer than the standard. We have hundreds of patients waiting for MRIs across the province, and after seven years of mismanagement, the problem in the Interior Health region is worse than ever.

So again to the Minister of Health: how bad does it have to get before he'll admit that his health care plan is failing?

Hon. G. Abbott: That certainly goes to the division of labour in this House. They talk; we act. The year we took office — 2,585 MRI procedures. Last year — and it will be higher again this year — 11,136 MRI procedures, a 333 percent increase.

It was even larger, because they now have an MRI in Prince George where they never had one before — a 373 percent increase in the number of MRI procedures undertaken in the Northern Health Authority as a result of the investment that this government has made.

C. James: I can't believe that the Minister of Health is standing up, faced with the kind of wait times that patients are faced with, and saying that everything is fine. It just fits with his earlier comment that he made a month or so ago that people are dreaming if they think they can fix health care.

Well, we will fix health care, unlike this government over there. Let's take a look….

C. James: Let's see how proud the minister is of these waiting times. Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops — 105 days for an MRI. East Kootenay Regional Hospital — 182 days for an MRI. Kootenay Boundary

Regional Hospital — 280 days. That's how long patients are waiting and suffering, and all this minister does is deny, deny.

Well, these aren't numbers. These are people. These are people who are waiting in pain, who are waiting to get back to work, who are waiting to get back to school, who are waiting to get on with their lives.

Can the Minister of Health explain to these people how a 280-day wait is health care where and when you need it?

Hon. G. Abbott: We're dedicated to continuous improvement in this area as well as every other area. But we should also note that if you need….

Hon. G. Abbott: If one needs an urgent or emergent MRI, it is done today in Interior Health and everywhere else in British Columbia. I know they don't like to talk about…

Hon. G. Abbott: …the past, but in 2001 we had a mobile MRI that toured around between Prince George, Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops, Kelowna General Hospital and Cranbrook. It did the circuit around interior and northern B.C.

Today it's three permanent MRIs in the Interior of British Columbia — first time ever. We are going to be seeing hundreds of millions of dollars invested at Kelowna General Hospital, Vernon Jubilee Hospital and Shuswap Lake General Hospital. For the first time ever, we are going to have a CAT scan at Shuswap Lake General Hospital. We're constantly improving the system, unlike the opposition that can only talk about it.

A. Dix: Hon. Speaker, you'd think that maybe, when the minister gets data like 252 days wait time for an MRI in Penticton…

You know, the Minister of Transportation says: "Not for urgent cases." I guess he's not waiting for an MRI. I guess he's not waiting in pain for an MRI. It's shameful. The Minister of Health talks about constant improvement. Period one, a year ago — an 84-day average wait in Penticton, now 252 days. I guess his idea of continuous improvement…

A. Dix: …is different from everybody else's. Why doesn't he just get on with it? It's a scandal, the wait times for MRIs. It's 30 days in Ontario, but an 84-day average in British Columbia and in his own region, 250 days. Talk about it. The Minister of Advanced Education made this diagnosis. I think it applies here. Maybe it's code red-in-the-face.

Let me ask the minister: when is he going to get on with it and reduce wait times for MRIs in his own health region?

Hon. G. Abbott: What's a scandal is the absolutely reckless and relentless fearmongering that this opposition does on a constant basis around British Columbia — a constant basis. Nine MRIs….

Hon. G. Abbott: Nine MRI machines when we took office. In August we will celebrate the 20th MRI at the new Abbotsford regional hospital and cancer centre. I know that maybe these members have concocted some utopian vision about how things were under their leadership, but the facts don't lie.

In 2001, 2,585 MRIs were done in Interior Health. Last year 11,136 — an improvement of 330 percent in that short period of time. The reason why we've had that improvement in that short period of time is because we made the investment. They talk; we made the investment.

A. Dix: The Canadian Medical Association says that the average wait time for an MRI is 30 days in Ontario. The Interior Health Authority…. Who does the Interior Health Authority report to? Does it report to the member for Vancouver-Kensington? No. Does it report to the Leader of the Opposition? No.

It reports to the Minister of Health. What do they say about Kelowna General Hospital? Hon. Speaker, 210 days — is that more than 30 days? I think it's more than 30 days.

The Interior Health Authority — what do they say? They report to the Minister of Health. Penticton Regional Hospital — 323 days. Is that more than 30 days, hon. Members? You bet it's more than 30 days.

It's outrageous. If you're waiting in pain, 323 days is outrageous. And the Minister of Health is talking about an announcement in Abbotsford in four months.

Why doesn't he get down to it in his own health region and do something about this scandalous situation?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, more empty talk, more empty promises from an opposition that had ten years to deliver and delivered nothing in that ten years.

You know, in addition to the increased number of MRI scanners that we have in the province, what we've also seen since 2001 is an increase from 16 CT scanners in 2001 to 47 CT scanners today.

So what does that mean? The members want to talk about the number of procedures. Again, we can listen to this empty rhetoric from the socialists opposite all day, but the facts remain the same — 240,000…

Hon. G. Abbott: …CT scans in 2001. Last year 389,000 CT scans — a 62 percent increase over that period of time.

D. Thorne: Not only is there a shortage of MRI technologists, but a recent article in the B.C. Medical Journal shows there is a serious shortage of mammography technologists as well. That shortage is affecting mammogram participation rates.

Since 2005 the Canadian benchmark for participation rate among women between 50 and 69 years of age is 70 percent. Unfortunately, we are nowhere near that in British Columbia. In the East Kootenays, for example, participation rates are as low as 30 percent. The problem is access.

My question to the Minister of Health today is: what is he doing or going to do to ensure that women right across this province have fair and equitable access to screening — screening that will save lives?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for her question. I read the Vancouver Sun article with interest, as I understand the opposition member may have this morning. I'm pleased to advise the member that we have a very, very good screening mammography program in the province of British Columbia.

We are working with the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation and other partners to make it an even better screening program in British Columbia. That is why we made an unprecedented $4 million investment over the past two years in the Go Have One campaign in partnership with the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation.

This is a letter from the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation, B.C.-Yukon region, and they note…. This is them: "In the first year of the campaign, we increased the number of women booking their mammograms for the first time by 10,677 women, or a 22 percent increase. Second year, a 24 percent increase in women booking for the first time — 11,724. Over the two years 46 percent more B.C. women now in the system — 22,401. Once they're in the system, we know they're there to stay."

D. Thorne: With all due respect to the minister, of course the number of mammograms is up, but not nearly keeping pace with the population growth and the need in British Columbia, as the waiting times say the numbers.

The problem is not just rural; it's a suburban issue too. Wait times are deterring women in the suburbs from getting mammograms done. In Surrey the wait time is still up to 14 weeks. In Coquitlam — and I know this personally — it is over three months. In Burnaby, unbelievably, some women are waiting up to six months for a mammogram. So if we want to improve participation rates and save more lives, we obviously need to improve these wait times. Much more needs to be done than the minister is saying is being done.

Again, I ask the Minister of Health: what will he do today to reduce these waiting times and save the lives of more women?

Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, the member is confused between screening for screening purposes and mammograms for diagnostic purposes. There is no wait time in the province of British Columbia for mammograms for diagnostic purposes — none. There is none. There is no delay for diagnostic screening processes in British Columbia. There is none.

The members don't understand the distinction between screening and diagnostic purposes. If someone wants a screen for diagnostic purposes, they will get it immediately. If women are concerned, even though it's only for a screening purpose, and they want to get in earlier, the number to call is 1-888-GO-HAVE-1. The organization will ensure that regardless of where you live in British Columbia, you will get your screening done on a very prompt basis.

B. Simpson: Tolko Industries in the Okanagan has indicated that they're going to be asking the minister to release their lands from tree farm licence 49 in the Enderby and Monte Lake regions. These are lakeshore properties, and the Central Okanagan regional district has already indicated that they have concerns about development on those properties.

Will the Minister of Forests commit today that he will immediately begin consultations in the Okanagan

with the affected communities so that he does not repeat the mistakes made on Vancouver Island?

Hon. R. Coleman: Under section 39.1 of the Forest Act, companies are entitled to ask the minister to have private forest land returned to private forest management. They're allowed to do this. When a request comes through, it will be processed accordingly.

B. Simpson: That's why yesterday I tabled a 2,500-signature petition in this House asking for this minister's resignation — for that exact reason. He persistently fails to protect the public trust in these land transactions.

As a result of pressure from the opposition and the people of Vancouver Island, and of an Auditor General's investigation, it appears the minister is doing some kind of consultation in the Pope and Talbot tree farm licence land releases in the Kootenays. That consultation involves PricewaterhouseCoopers, the monitor for Pope and Talbot's bankruptcy deal. The private lands are already sold. It's on the webpage. There are documents there that say those lands are already sold.

What is the point of consulting with those communities on lands that have already sold? What is the minister attempting to do in the Kootenays — kid the people that he's actually consulting with them?

Hon. R. Coleman: If you do a little more research, you will find that the sale is subject to the removal from the tree farm licence.

S. Fraser: So we've got an after-the-fact consultation process after the lands are removed from the tree farm licence — sort of a postmortem or an autopsy on disastrous Liberal forest policy. That's great. I've got to tell that to the people in Port Alberni.

This Liberal government has given away over 500 square miles of valuable timberland just on Vancouver Island. Liquidation forestry is the name of the game here. This is raw log exports, job loss — the works.

Do the forest communities and the first nations on Vancouver Island…? Did they also get an opportunity to engage in a postmortem of the disastrous land giveaways on Vancouver Island?

S. Fraser: Well, there seem to be some contradictions here, and that's not good enough. I asked this question of the minister. The minister has no consistency….

S. Fraser: The minister has no consistency in policies here. There's no plan at all. The forest land giveaways have been devastating on Vancouver Island to first nations and to forest communities, and they've led to watershed destruction and job losses — you name it.

Will the minister offer the same opportunity — this is an after-the-fact opportunity for these communities and first nations on Vancouver Island — to have a postmortem of the damage done by those land removals by this government?

Hon. R. Coleman: Statutory decisions have been made. We will not go back on the process. Those are complete. The ones on TFL 23 in the Kootenays are having some process to them. There's no removal of those lands from the TFL as yet.

J. Horgan: Well, after ignoring community groups, local governments and first nations in my community, I'm heartened to hear that the minister is having a reversal of fortune, and he's going to discuss ripping lands out of tree farm licences in the Kootenays.

My question to him is similar to the one from the member from Port Alberni. Will the Minister of Forests come to my community and talk to first nations, talk to community groups, talk to displaced forest workers and explain to them how giving a gift to Western Forest Products has somehow revitalized forestry on Vancouver Island?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member brought up this issue in the House a while back, as he knows. As we came through the process with regards to the Western Forest lands, there was initially no public response with regards to the removal. It was when some of those lands were put up for sale, about eight or nine months after the fact, that the public got excited about it and we were hearing about it.

So when I had the conversation with the member on this one, and as we were coming through this and at the same time….

Hon. R. Coleman: I said that we would add some public meetings with regards to any future TFL removals, and that's what we've done.

J. Horgan: Well, it's certainly disingenuous of the minister to say there was no response. There was no response because the minister stood in this House and said that the land would remain in forest production.

The opposite has happened. The regional growth strategy for southern Vancouver Island has been

thrown out the window. Hundreds of thousands of people are now questioning how we're going to develop, how we're going to grow, how we're going to deal with climate change in the Premier's brave new world. The Minister of Forests sits and says that nobody cares. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Will the minister come to Jordan River and speak to community members, speak to first nations — the Beecher Bay band — for the first time and say: how are you going to fix this?

Hon. R. Coleman: We believe in private property rights, and you don't. You don't believe that people should….

Hon. R. Coleman: These were private lands that were in a TFL. The statutory decision….

Hon. R. Coleman: The statutory decision was made in January of 2007 with regards to the ones that the member opposite is talking about. With regards to the ones in TFL 23, the process is still ongoing. A decision will be made one way or the other at the appropriate time, after the process and a recommendation is brought back by my staff.

C. Trevena: I think this minister doesn't realize that we believe in the public interest and want to protect the public interest, and this government does not.

Despite repeated efforts by the CEP from the TimberWest mill in Elk Falls and Campbell River, the Forests Minister never supported them in their attempt to get a buyer for their viable mill and save more than 270 jobs. Once again the minister didn't do his job. Now the workers at Catalyst pulp mill are losing their jobs, despite the hottest pulp market in decades. This didn't have to happen.

The Ministry of Forests round table is supposedly coming back to Campbell River. Since the Minister of Forests will be in the city sometime soon, will he commit today to have a special meeting with all the laid-off workers in the city so he can explain to them directly why he didn't show the leadership needed to save their jobs?

Hon. R. Coleman: Maybe you will start by also telling the workers in Campbell River the truth. The fact is that you as an opposition might decide to quit being disingenuous with regard….

Hon. R. Coleman: Why don't you mention the fact that there's a sub-prime mortgage problem in the United States? Why don't you mention the fact that the dollar has gone up by 15 cents in just a little over a year and a half, which has taken $130 million per penny out of the forest sector? Why don't you tell them the truth about the fact that…? The reality is that the housing market is in a tank in the United States.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, I would advise you to just choose your words a little bit more carefully.

Why don't you actually let the people that…? I have met with forest workers across British Columbia. They actually have been through cycles before. They understand this.

You go out there, and all you do is spew negativity towards forestry and forest workers and their future in the province of British Columbia, and we're not going to do that.

C. Trevena: This minister has let down the workers in Campbell River. He made promises to them which he didn't live up to. Every time he speaks or acts, he again shows why he shouldn't have this file.

C. Trevena: The Minister of Economic Development stated that Mackenzie is getting a special team to make sure that the federal money for forest workers will "flow as fast as possible for the benefit of individual forest workers."

Instead of picking winners and losers, will the minister commit today that all impacted communities, including Campbell River, get this special treatment?

Hon. R. Coleman: It was the leadership of this government and under this minister that a pulp mill in Port Alice was actually put back into operation and to work. Do you know how that was accomplished?

Hon. R. Coleman: That was accomplished by getting together the parties that had an interest in the mill, working through the issues for them…

Hon. R. Coleman: …environmental and other issues, and speaking to investors — exactly what is actually going on in two of the closed pulp mills in British Columbia today as we try and attract investment into those particular operations for the future of British Columbia.

S. Fraser: I have a petition from thousands of British Columbians again urging the government to move ahead with safe antifreeze legislation to protect the environment. This brings it up to over 30,000 — over 300,000 if you include the various organizations that support this.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I have the honour to present the B.C. Assessment annual report for 2007 and the audited financial statements for the period ended December 31, 2007.

J. Horgan: I'd like to table an electronic petition signed by 1,436 residents urging the government to revisit its misguided decision to remove forest lands from tree farm licence 25, which will affect forestry jobs, reduce recreation opportunities and lead to runaway development on the rugged west coast.

B. Bennett: I'm presenting a petition from over 16,000 residents of the East Kootenay in relation to 911 emergency service in the East Kootenay.

J. Kwan: I rise to table a petition that contains approximately 1,500 signatures. It calls on the government to adopt the 23 recommendations of the inner-city inclusivity housing table that was tabled in March of 2007, including the building and construction of 3,200 units of affordable housing, raising welfare rates by 50 percent and ending the barriers that keep people in need from accessing welfare.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I rise to table a letter from the chairman of the board of directors of the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

N. Simons: I would like to present a petition from residents of the Powell River region who are concerned about the meat regulations and the impact on farmers. I'd like to also present a petition from members of the Powell River region who are concerned about the cost of having to travel on the ferries to go buy meat.

R. Austin: I'd like to present a petition with 93 signatures of people living in northwest B.C. opposing the development of coalbed methane in the Sacred Headwaters of the Nass, Stikine and Skeena rivers.

D. Chudnovsky: I have a series of petitions. The first one is from 2,782 British Columbians who are concerned about the government's failure to deal with the homelessness crisis. The second is from 60 residents who are looking for an increase to welfare and minimum wage rates and concerned about the lack of resources for social housing. The third is from 25 residents concerned about the minimum wage and the low welfare rates.

K. Conroy: I'd like to introduce, acknowledge and thank, actually, our legal co-op student Karalyn MacWilliams for all her drafting assistance with all of our private members' bills. She's done an excellent job. On behalf of all of us in opposition, I'd like to thank her.

Hon. C. Taylor: I have two reports to table: first of all, the revised schedule I for fiscal year ended March 31, 2008.

Second, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, I'm pleased to present reports for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2008, on all the amounts borrowed by government and all the amounts loaned to government bodies. These reports provide an overview of the province's borrowing activity, fiscal 2007-2008.

Hon. O. Ilich: I table the 2007 annual report for the Labour Relations Board.

R. Fleming: I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the fourth session of the current parliament.

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

This report relates to the retention and disposal of government records. It summarizes the committee's review of nine resolutions for record retention and disposal authorities presented to the Public Accounts Committee by the public documents committee.

The public documents committee reviews each year the records retention schedule created by the line ministries and central agencies according to the legal, operational and financial obligations inherent in the records.

If the records have long-term value to the corporate government, then the public documents committee recommends the retention by the government archives. If their value is limited, the public documents committee recommends that the records be kept in ministry storage for a period of time and then, once the obligations have lapsed, be confidentially destroyed.

Under section 3 of the Document Disposal Act, the Legislative Assembly is required to approve the destruction of government records on the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee.

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

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

B. Simpson: I appreciate the opportunity to take a look at these sections. The first section is an amendment to the Forest Act, part 10, section 127. For the record I just want to be clear — because sometimes it's hard to tell whether I've got the current version of the bill in front of me — on the actual act that this is being substituted for.

The current version I have says: "Unless exempted under this Part, timber that is harvested from Crown land, from land granted by the government after March 12, 1906 or from land granted by the government before March 12, 1906 in a tree farm licence area, and wood residue produced from the timber, must be (a) used in British Columbia, or (b) manufactured in British Columbia into wood products to the extent of manufacture specified by regulation."

Is that what we are removing from the act and replacing, or adding this to that section?

B. Simpson: That's what I meant. I misspoke in my statement. This is an addendum to that. Section 127.1 is what we'll be adding to it. This clause is with respect to people attempting to remove from British Columbia timber that is harvested from Crown land or the land granted after March 12, before March 12, and wood residue, unless the timber wood residue is exempted.

What's the need for this to be added? If the minister could give us an example of why we have to add this into the act.

Hon. R. Coleman: As I understand it, under the present section 127 it's when it leaves the province that we can enforce. This actually allows us to enhance our ability to enforce export restrictions by providing clear authority to sanction persons who attempt to circumvent export restrictions in cases where the attempt is discovered within the province.

B. Simpson: Again, I'm going to have to admit my ignorance here and ask for more clarification. I get the minister's point. The existing section, he indicated, is after it leaves the province, and this section allows the minister to intervene in-province.

If I understand the minister correctly, if someone is caught in the attempt or suspected of attempting to remove logs or wood residue from British Columbia, then we can intervene now. Whereas the way the act is just now, you have to actually have proof that it's already left. Is that what the minister is saying?

B. Simpson: Is there an accrual of circumstances? Is this something that's happening more and more? Do we need to have more leverage and need to clarify it so we can catch people in the act, so to speak? Is this a circumstance that we're trying to address that's real and emergent and growing?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, it's not because something is happening more and more. But we did do an enforcement audit in the Vancouver port and found some wood that had gone through customs but hadn't left yet.

Although we still use this section of the act, it became clear at that time that we needed to amend the legislation to make sure we had the power really clear within the act to be able to do that.

B. Simpson: Again, just so I'm clear, the amendment just puts in bullets the descriptors of the material coming off of British Columbia lands. In section 127.1(a)(ii) and (iii), are those effectively now designated private lands? Or are these some of the lands that would have been released on the Vancouver Island releases and the kinds of things that we've discussed today?

Just so I'm clear that that's what we're talking about. There will be lands now that predominantly are outside of tree farm licences and are designated as de facto private lands and subjected to federal restrictions on log exports. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: Private lands that are in tree farm licences are governed by this. Private lands that are not in a tree farm licence are governed under the federal statute.

B. Simpson: So the few remaining portions of private lands in tree farm licences like the one we canvassed today with TFL 49 and TFL 23 would come under this as long as they are still in those tree farm licences. But if the minister released those lands, like the Vancouver Island lands, they would then not come under this amendment. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: So land that would be in a tree farm licence granted by government pre-1906…. Let me get this straight. Anything granted by government after March 12, 1906, that is private land is still governed under the provincial statute. Pre-1906 is governed under the Notice 102 provisions, under the federal statute, when it's in private hands if it's not in a tree farm licence. Today there would be about 11,000 hectares left in that sort of category in B.C.

B. Simpson: As opposed to the well over 100,000 that were there pre-2004 — almost 200,000, I think, is what it was.

Again just for the record. The lands that have been released by the minister and his predecessor, and the potential lands that will be released…. They get then excluded from provincial government oversight, whether it's under this amendment or the section 127 that's already in the act.

Part of what the government does when they release those lands is release them from the provincial government oversight, and they release them from this new legislative authority with respect to attempting to remove materials from those lands. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, that's correct. Any export of anything off of those lands is governed by the federal statutes.

B. Simpson: With respect, just for clarity, when the lands are removed and come out from under this new authority that's been granted, does the federal government do compliance and enforcement on their Notice 102 restrictions? Or is it still provincial compliance and enforcement? Is there a memorandum of understanding there? Who actually does the work of enforcing the constraints on log exports on those lands that have been removed?

Hon. R. Coleman: My staff that are here don't have the answer to that question, with regards…. Because it's the legislation, it would have to be someone in the ministry. So we'll endeavour to get you that answer. We think that probably the federal do their own enforcement, and we do ours. But there may be a relationship between our C-and-E guys and them, which I wouldn't be surprised.

B. Simpson: We would appreciate that clarification. It is a question that we are being asked. So if that could be clarified by way of e-mail or something.

Then just a final question on this section: will this add additional burdens to compliance and enforcement? We canvassed compliance and enforcement very briefly in estimates. There were concerns raised about the level of staffing capabilities in compliance and enforcement, especially with respect to promises made under FRPA, that there would be an increased compliance and enforcement regime to make sure the results-based approach actually works. We're now adding another potential contravention, or clarifying the contravention, to catch it earlier.

Will we be doing an increased compliance and enforcement in the early days of this coming into being to make sure that we understand what's happening and can start nipping things in the bud if there are problems with it?

Hon. R. Coleman: It won't add any extra burden to our people. It just clarifies what they can do while they're out there already.

B. Simpson: With the minister's permission, I have some general questions about this whole range section. What we're going to do now is go through to…. I believe it's section 24. Sections 16 to 24 are range in the Forest and Range Practices Act, and it's clarifying some issues around range — compliance and enforcement, range plans. If I could ask some general questions, then we can maybe do this as a block and move on. I don't have specific questions, necessarily.

My understanding is that this section of Bill 33 was originally included in Bill 8, which we debated previously in the House, but was pulled from Bill 8 and is now coming in, in this bill. Is that correct?

B. Simpson: What was the reason that it was pulled from Bill 8 in the first place?

Hon. R. Coleman: The reason it was done is because the B.C. Cattlemen and the stakeholders asked for more time to do a bit more consultation with the ministry as we developed this part of the legislation.

B. Simpson: That's my understanding as well. It caught some folks by surprise in a last-minute conference call or some last-minute consultation, so it was delayed.

Would the minister comment as to the satisfaction of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association with this section now? Were their concerns addressed, and does this section now satisfy the original concerns they had, which caused it to be pulled out of Bill 8?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, it does. There are also two House amendments. So when we do these sections, because we're going to have a general discussion about all of them, let's make sure we stop at the right section for the House amendment. The House amendments are also a result of that consultation.

B. Simpson: So there are a couple of other amendments here as a result of that consultation that didn't make it into the original document.

Again, part of what the B.C. Cattlemen's Association was doing and part of where I think things got disconnected a little bit is that the B.C. Cattlemen's Association was conducting a consultation process on range management. It's entitled Improving Range Management Under the Forest and Range Practices Act: Issues and Recommendations. The report was authored by J. Brian Nyberg. It's dated February 2008.

There are a host of issues in here — a big component to do with range stewardship plans, the role of compliance and enforcement, etc.

The feedback I've been given is that this section still does not address a fundamental problem that the cattlemen have with these range stewardship plans. That is, we're trying to make range stewardship plans align with forest stewardship plans — that timber type of a pre-eminence. The focus is on making those two plans look as closely as possible for compliance and enforcement to have an easier job enforcing both range stewardship plans and forest stewardship plans, because the same C-and-E officers have to enforce the compliance with those plans and with the act.

I'm being told by folks that this still does not address that. It still does not clean that up. In fact, there are clauses throughout here that state categorically that this is creating consistency with forest stewardship plans.

The B.C. Cattlemen's Association may be signing off on this. But is the minister getting feedback from other cattlemen who are actually trying to put in range stewardship plans and who have the continued concern that what we're doing is setting up a timber-like forest stewardship plan approach for range when what we in fact need is much more clarity in the act to recognize the issues of range-invasive plants, wayward cattle — all kinds of things that they need to try and capture in their range stewardship plans — and that doesn't fully satisfy the needs of the range licensees for their desire to get unique range stewardship plans under the Forest and Range Practices Act?

Hon. R. Coleman: Actually, in every area I've been with the round table — I think at about eight or nine of them — there has been a cattlemen's representative at them. They haven't brought that up as an issue. The biggest concern is the loss of forage for their cattle in the forest, it seems, for most of them.

But all of these amendments give basic legal structure for the plans. That's what they do. We recognize the difference, and we've worked with the B.C. Cattlemen on that thing. That's why, once we get the legal structure in place, the development of regulation will be made in full consultation with them to make sure it relates back to plans that have focused more or recognize the difference between the range plan and the FSP-type plan.

B. Simpson: Well, the Nyberg report is pretty explicit about the issues arising under the FRPA legislation that I'm being told this does not address. Again, for the record:

There's a certain irony to that problem, because what the government was supposed to be attempting to do was streamline the legislation, streamline the process and get the administrative burden off of licence holders. Instead the ranchers are saying that's not the case; the reverse is true.

So my question to the minister is: if these are not being addressed in this legislation, does the legislation give sufficient freedom to the minister to address them

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, that's what it does. It puts a legal foundation in place, but we do have the flexibility in terms of the range stewardship plans to work with the cattlemen and devise something that's more streamlined and works better for them.

B. Simpson: One last question on this as a general question, and then we can go into the sections that the minister needs to put amendments to.

Because the government has undertaken this review of the Forest and Range Practices Act with respect to range, and as the minister's contention is that this section of changes to the act will enable him to make the adjustments necessary that came out of the Nyberg report, will there be a follow-up consultation process at an appropriate time to make sure that these recommendations in this fairly extensive and useful report have in fact been achieved?

Will we close the loop and make sure we get out and consult with these range holders to make sure that we did achieve their desires through both the changes to the legislation and the regulation that will follow?

Hon. R. Coleman: We're going to go out and consult with regards to the development of the regs. It's quite possible that in the future, as we develop the regs and as we deal with the Nyberg report going forward, there may be additional legislation after consultation with the industry.

Not everything in the Nyberg report necessarily works for us, but it's certainly a foundation to work on with the cattlemen with regards to the future of the cattle industry. Basically, we'll consult on the regs, make sure they adapt and be flexible for them. Then going forward, the continued consultation with the cattlemen will be ongoing.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the amendment to section 23 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

Hon. R. Coleman: The amendment harmonizes terminology of this section with similar language found in the provisions elsewhere in the act that deal with range use plans and range stewardship plans.

B. Simpson: If I could just ask the minister to give some more clarification. Again, we've had this pulled from Bill 8. We've had it inserted into Bill 33. We're now making another amendment to it. What are the circumstances that have forced yet another change to something that was already in the works a couple of times?

Hon. R. Coleman: This is a direct request from the cattlemen. Subsection (I) of this section used to read: "the strategies specified in the plan to deal with the issues identified by the minister under section 45.2." They didn't like the word "strategies." They asked us if we would consider changing it to "actions" as part of the consultation process. After they'd seen the act, they wanted us to change that one word. We're fine with it, so that's why it's here.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the amendment to section 24 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

Hon. R. Coleman: This amendment harmonizes the terminology of this section with similar language found in the provisions elsewhere in the act that deal with range use plans and range stewardship plans.

B. Simpson: Again, as I understand the minister's comments on the previous amendment, this is the same thing. It's exchanging "strategies" for "actions."

I did have a quick question under this one. It's more for my own edification. On 45.1(3), when a range use plan expires, it seems like there's some extended liability to the range use holders. If the minister could give me an explanation of that. Is it in fact an extended liability to the range use holders? Is that new, as a result of this amendment — so not the amendment we're amending but the sense of what it is we're doing in this case — to the Forest and Range Practices Act? Do we have a similar extended liability under forest stewardship plans as we have in these range plans?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, we do have a similar one under the forest stewardship plans. Basically, this provides that range obligations and plans remain in effect beyond the expiry of the plan. This provides for operational continuity when replacing a plan by allowing the plan holder to continue working under the expired plan until a replacement plan is approved.

B. Simpson: If I can get a clarification from the minister before I ask questions on this. The explanatory notes for section 27 say — and this is a change to the Forest and Range Practices Act, section 122: "…clarifies when the board becomes authorized to audit or investigate compliance of persons acting for or at the direction of a party if the party's own compliance is not in issue as a result of due diligence…." Is the board here the Forest Practices Board? Is that the reference?

Could the minister please give a broader explanation? Again, it's one of these things where the amendment is making a very minor change, but the implications of the explanatory note may be that the change is more significant, because it's adding a due-diligence defence in advance of the complaint being investigated. That's what it seems to me.

Due diligence as a defence is nice to have in the case of safety or infractions when you're actually in the court system, when the complaint is being investigated either judicially or through a governing body. But you still have to show that you have done your due diligence, and you have to provide your proof of due diligence.

It seems to me that what we're doing is being presumptive of the existence of due diligence for the Forest Practices Board actually being able to initiate an investigation. If there's a presumption of due diligence, will that then stop the Forest Practices Board from being able to conduct investigations? Is that what this small amendment is actually doing?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll read another note into the record. It may help here. Basically….

B. Simpson: I wish my brain wasn't as tired, being late in the session, but I will go and look at Hansard and see if I understand that. I appreciate the minister reading his explanatory note into the record for folks who may have a question here.

On section 28. Again, I thought we did a bunch of this work in Bill 8. So is this a tidy-up of something that is residual from Bill 8 or just another portion of the act? What it's doing, again, is to do with the rollover of

forest stewardship plans, and we canvassed that — whether that was an automatic rollover from five years to ten years, what the review process was, whether the public would be consulted, etc.

This again is substituting "may grant one extension" for "may grant one or more extensions," but the explanatory note says "subject to an overall 10 year limit." My understanding is that these are five-year plans. So if I grant one extension of five years…. Five and five equals ten, so I'm not sure how you could grant one or more extensions that add up to ten the way that the plans are currently configured.

Hon. R. Coleman: This allows for not exceeding five years, but if an extension of two was given, another extension would be allowed for another two, but not to exceed five. So the maximum extension is five years.

But if we extended the plan for two and then we wanted to do it again for another two, this allows us to do it as long as we stay within the five-year period.

B. Simpson: I just want to clarify. I get what the minister is saying. An extension could possibly be for a shorter duration than five years, but the total extension that will be allowed would be a consecutive ten years for that one licensee to have a forest stewardship plan. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: The total can't be more than ten, and the extension can't be more than five. If you have two smaller extensions, two and a half and two and a half add up to five, and you would have two extensions. This accounts for that flexibility.

B. Simpson: Hopefully, the final one on this section. It was something that came to me after we canvassed Bill 8. Because this section is in here, it allows me to ask the question. We canvassed at length the nature of the consultation that would be required on the forest stewardship plan at its five-year renewal date.

Our concern was that it would be an automatic renewal. The minister indicated that by regulation, it will be a renewal that requires public consultation and does require some feedback from the public.

But what struck me is that it gets capped at ten years. What will the process look like post–ten years? If the forest stewardship plan gets approved at five years or when it expires, it has to go through some kind of public consultation process again anyway. Then after the ten-year limit, will we be undertaking a completely new start to the forest stewardship plans? What's the thinking of government when you reach that ten-year mark? Do we start from ground zero again?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, it's a new application. Obviously, if they have a history and it's on the same land base, they should have the history that makes it more simple for them to make their application. But it's a new application after ten years.

The Chair: Members, this concludes consideration of the deferred sections of the bill.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Bill 33, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, reported complete with amendments.

Bill 33, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C. Richmond: I call committee stage of Bill 35, intituled Social Workers Act, in the hands of the hon. Minister of Children and Family Development.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 35; K. Whittred in the chair.

N. Simons: In section 1 there are a number of definitions, and throughout the act there's a reference to

Hon. T. Christensen: By virtue of including the word "prescribed," it means that it would be somebody set out in regulations, so there doesn't need to be an actual definition here in the definitions section.

N. Simons: The definition would be in the regulations. Maybe I'll get back to that when we discuss that further. So I'm fine on section 1.

N. Simons: Section 9 outlines the bylaws for registration under the new Social Worker Act. Under paragraph (b) there's a reference to "classes of registrants." I'm wondering if the minister can actually tell us what some of those classes would be and if that is a decision made by the board itself or if that is established through legislation.

Hon. T. Christensen: What this would allow is for the college itself to establish different classes of registrants. They would do that on their own, and they would then make the argument to the minister as to why they felt it was necessary to have those different classes, because a bylaw under section 9 is subject to approval of the minister.

For example, it would be expected that the nature of the different classes would be based potentially on the nature of different aspects of social work. This doesn't obligate them to establish different classes, but it does provide that option to do so by bylaw.

N. Simons: Are there other jurisdictions that use this type of classification within social work — what particular specialty they have? Is that a system used other places?

Hon. T. Christensen: The answer is yes. There is the ability to differentiate between classes in other provinces. But the legislative mechanism by which they do that may be different than what we've enabled here in British Columbia.

We're enabling it for the college of social workers to do it by bylaw. In other jurisdictions it may be by virtue of the legislation itself or more than one piece of legislation. So the capacity is there to make the distinction elsewhere, but the vehicle by which you get there may be a little bit different.

N. Simons: Can the minister explain how that use of the class of registrants system will influence practice? The purpose could perhaps be what I'm looking for.

Hon. T. Christensen: I need to correct an oversight. I have yet to introduce the staff I have here with me, and I apologize for that, because they are very ably helping with answering these questions.

I'm joined by the assistant deputy minister of integrated policy and legislation, Mark Sieben, as well as the director of legislation, Leah Bailey. I'm thankful to have them here. I understand they were able to give the member opposite a bit of a briefing earlier in terms of some clarification around certain aspects of the act.

In terms of the last question, it is ultimately up to the college itself to develop what it believes would be the basis for different classes of registration. The expectation at this point is that the purpose of doing that would be to recognize a particular specialty, a special set of skills that a certain class of social workers would hold — really, to enlighten the public in terms of the fact that somebody has particular qualifications. For example, we could contemplate that in terms of a social worker dealing specifically with mental health or perhaps child welfare.

There could be a host of different opportunities there. It will really be up to the college itself to determine where it believes that would be something that was positive in terms of serving the public best.

N. Simons: Continuing on with subsection 9(1)(i). It reads: "…authorize a committee established under section 8 (1) to determine if an academic program meets the requirement of paragraph (h) of this subsection."

Would this committee be responsible for assessing the value of programs interprovincially? Would they be looking at other programs across the country or in fact internationally? Would this committee for registration under the college be responsible for looking at regulations in other provinces?

Hon. T. Christensen: It's important that paragraphs (h) and (i) be read together. So what paragraph (h) allows is for the college to establish the qualifications required for registration. In establishing a bylaw that sets out the qualifications to become registered as a member of the college…. That's a bylaw that is subject to approval of the minister. Ultimately, if government believed that they were setting the qualifications far too high or far too low, we would be able to say, "No, we don't believe that the bylaw should be approved," and they would have to rework it.

They set out the qualifications required to become a member of the college. Then under paragraph (i), what the college is allowed to do is establish a committee of the college that would be entitled to review any particular academic program to determine whether or not going through that academic program actually meets the qualifications set out by paragraph (h).

The committee itself doesn't get to determine the qualifications. The committee can only determine whether a particular academic program enables a person to meet those qualifications.

N. Simons: Section 10 deals with the application of the college's bylaws. Subsection 10(3): "The minister may request the board to amend or repeal an existing bylaw for the college…."

Hon. T. Christensen: What paragraph 3 in section 10 really is directed towards is ensuring that there is ultimate oversight in terms of there being a legislative framework to allow for a self-governing profession. In applying that subsection (3), it would really be driven by section 7, paragraph 3, of the act, which sets out the board's responsibilities, as well as section 3 of the act, which sets out the objects of the act as a whole.

N. Simons: Can the minister confirm that it is possible that the direction of government may be to encapsulate more than just registered social workers? Is it possible that by having that oversight on the college's decisions…? Is that any sort of an infringement, or is that something that is usual in these kinds of circumstances when there are independent colleges?

Hon. T. Christensen: This is a standard power that is retained for government in respect of its relationship with most self-governing bodies. I can't think of one offhand that it's not applicable to, in other legislation.

It is a limited power, though, because government couldn't ask them to repeal or amend a bylaw or to create a bylaw if it was inconsistent with the objects of the act as set out in section 3 of the act. It doesn't give government a wide-ranging power. What it does is ensure that there's an ability to ensure that the board is acting in compliance with section 3, which sets out the duties and objects of the legislation as a whole.

N. Simons: That was what was really confusing me — when the duty and objects of the college to carry out are to serve and protect the public, how any bylaws that they duly enacted would ever be repealed or overturned by the minister. I'm just trying to think of any examples where that could occur.

Hon. T. Christensen: I think the member has actually hit the purpose of the section on the head, and that is to ensure that ultimately, if the college is acting beyond its scope of responsibility and purporting to pass a bylaw that is beyond its scope of responsibility, the minister can say: "No, you can't do that."

As I say, it's consistent with that balance, actually, that is struck in enabling a self-governing profession that ultimately government has a responsibility relative to the public interest and needs some oversight of what the college is doing.

I can't, quite frankly, anticipate that this section would ever be necessary. The expectation is that the college will be very careful in ensuring that it is acting within the bounds of the act and the bounds of regulating social work practice as opposed to something else, but it is really a fail-safe provision that's necessary for this type of legislation.

N. Simons: Section 11 deals with interjurisdictional cooperation, and section 11(1) speaks specifically to governing bodies, meaning "the governing body of a social work profession in another province or a foreign jurisdiction."

So my question comes under subsection (2)(c), which speaks to these governing bodies entering into information-sharing agreements, including the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Is it possible that this sharing of information would include the transfer of information, personal information, from one jurisdiction to the next without that individual having any say over the matter?

Hon. T. Christensen: Again, this is a provision that's common with other legislation governing self-governing professions. It would in certain circumstances allow information to be shared without the consent of the registrant. The best example of that would be if a registrant had been disciplined, and that discipline had been noted on their record with the college.

In the public interest, we want to ensure that a college in another province can be aware of that information in the absence of consent of the registrant, in case the registrant — himself or herself — moves to that jurisdiction. So it does come down to ensuring that if you've somehow contravened the standards of practice and been in disciplinary trouble, for example, in Ontario….

If you're then here in B.C., certainly here in B.C. we want to know that and vice versa. So it's really focused on that type of restriction.

N. Simons: My concern is more specific to foreign jurisdictions. I wasn't so concerned if someone in Nova Scotia was aware of the disciplinary history of a social worker moving from a province to a province. Specifically, I'm concerned with the information-sharing that may occur between national governments. Perhaps if our information is stored on a database that is accessed by the United States or any other non-Canadian jurisdiction, is there any provision to protect the private information of individuals?

Hon. T. Christensen: Certainly, it's necessary that this ability extend beyond jurisdictions within Canada simply by virtue of the fact that there are professional social workers from jurisdictions around the world, actually, that we hope are coming to British Columbia, because we're always trying to recruit them.

It is necessary to be able to enter into those agreements with colleges of social work or similar bodies in other jurisdictions, whether they might be in the United Kingdom or Australia or states of the United States. So the provision is necessary.

It is, though, important to note that subsection 11(3) requires that an information-sharing agreement must be approved by the minister. So the college would develop these agreements, and they would not be effective under subsection (4) until approved by the minister. The intention certainly would be to minimize the information that is being shared and ensure that only such information as was absolutely necessary would in fact be shared between jurisdictions.

Again, it's driven at ensuring that we can determine qualifications and protect the public interest through recording disciplinary matters from other jurisdictions.

N. Simons: Has this section been vetted with the Information and Privacy Commissioner with respect to the sharing of information with foreign governments and the storage of personal information potentially outside Canada?

Hon. T. Christensen: There aren't any specific agreements that we've been asked to approve yet, so we haven't consulted around any particular agreement with the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

I can advise the member that we certainly consulted with the Information and Privacy Commissioner's office about the bill as a whole. In the event that the college were to come forward with a proposed information-sharing agreement and be asking the minister to approve it, we would be consulting with the Information and Privacy Commissioner's office at that time with respect to the specific agreement and would fully expect that the commissioner's office would comment in the event that we were missing the mark in terms of the nature of information we were allowing the agreement to share.

N. Simons: Thank you to the minister for those answers. Section 12 deals with…. It's the beginning of part 2, which is the "Registration" part. There are some concerns about mandatory registration. Is there any provision in this act, in section 12 or otherwise, where it is possible to foresee a group of workers in the social service sector being required to register?

Hon. T. Christensen: I think the member's question was whether there was some notion of mandatory registration in the future. The answer to that is no.

N. Simons: Will that be a decision that is made by the college, or will it be a decision that is made by the minister? There seems to be provision, when you establish classes, that you could establish a class for which a large number of people already work. Whether they are going to be then brought into the college by a regulation that requires all those who are working in that particular sector to be registered by the college….

Hon. T. Christensen: It gets a little bit convoluted through a number of sections in the act here, but the intention is essentially to maintain the status quo in terms of who is required to be a registrant of the college. Currently, under section 8 of the existing Social Workers Act, there are a number of people who are typically employed by government who are doing social work — who are social workers, who can call themselves social workers — yet are not required to be registered with the college of social workers by virtue of an exemption provided in section 8 of the act.

Under section 18 of this bill…. What it's going to allow is for those persons who are exempted to be prescribed by regulation. What that would enable is that if there were a group that currently practises social work but is not required to be registered and at some point in the future it is believed by the college and government they should be members of the college, you could change the regulation much more effectively and quickly than having to come back to the Legislature to remove an exemption that is set out in the act itself.

But at this point in time we don't contemplate changing the parties who are exempted from being required to be registered. I hope that answers the member's question.

N. Simons: It does to a certain degree. But what it does is explain that whereas previously it would require government to make that decision as to whether or not to include those people who are currently not required to be registered, under the new regime it would be up to the college. That seemed to be the answer. I will appreciate some clarification on that, just to make sure that in fact the people who are practising outside of the college will not be put in a position where they'll be required to register because of the changes in the college.

Hon. T. Christensen: I can confirm that for the member. Somebody who is not currently required to be registered won't be required to be registered, and the college on its own would not be able to change that. The exemptions will be prescribed by regulation, so it will be government that has to change that regulation, in the event that we no longer wanted somebody to be exempted.

In terms of the bylaws that the college will be entitled to develop, those will ultimately be subject to ministerial approval as well. So there are really two balances there in terms of where government would actually have to make the conscious decision around any broadening in scope of who is required to be registered.

N. Simons: I do have some questions about section 18. Section 18 is a short section. It deals specifically with who is able to call themselves a social worker. So my question is once again…. Subsection 18(1) describes: "…no person other than a registrant may use (a) the title 'social worker' or 'registered social worker.…'" But then there's subsection (2), which also describes the fact that people who work with the title currently may do so if they work for a prescribed person. Who is the prescribed person there?

Hon. T. Christensen: The prescribed persons will be those who are currently covered by the exemption in section 8 of the current act. That's how we intend to, through regulation, maintain those exemptions. It may be that the word "person" is creating some challenge for the member. We'd simply note that the definition of the word "person" is much broader than an individual. It includes government entities. It includes corporations. It's the legal definition of "person."

N. Simons: I suppose this section just highlights the fact that there's another decision that's going to be made by regulation rather than legislation, which implies a speeding-up of the process. Many times, that's the appropriate approach. Sometimes it can be seen as a relaxation of the enforcement or legislative mechanism. I'm just concerned that by this being within the regulations, the ability to change that part of the regulations makes it less permanent, so to speak.

Hon. T. Christensen: Certainly, the member is correct that by virtue of this act, we're dealing with the exemptions from the requirement to be a member of the college in a manner different than the previous act. But this is consistent with the modernization of the statute. The reality of having those exemptions set out in the act itself is a bit dated. More recent legislation would provide for such a power by regulation.

It certainly would still be subject — in actual, practical exercise of the power — to considerable discussion and consultation with anybody or any group that might be affected, before the exemptions were ever changed.

It wouldn't, in many cases, be in government's interest to be broadly expanding who is required to be registered, just by virtue of the pool of people that we currently have doing social work on a day-to-day basis and serving British Columbians well.

N. Simons: This just caught my eye with the reference to indictable offence. A conviction for a summary offence is sometimes a conviction on an offence that can be a hybrid offence. I'm just wondering if that's just the standard wording for this type of provision.

Hon. T. Christensen: This provision is consistent, I understand, with similar provisions in other legislation governing self-governing professions. What it essentially enables is for the inquiry committee to initiate an investigation in the event that somebody is convicted of an indictable offence. The fact that they're convicted is what triggers the ability to launch the investigation.

That's in contrast to a summary conviction offence, which tends to be much less serious, where it would actually be the nature of the offence that would be taken into account in triggering whether or not an investigation could be commenced. So if the nature of the summary conviction offence was one that suggested, on the facts, that it would constitute professional misconduct, then certainly, the inquiry committee could launch an investigation.

But if the nature of the summary conviction offence was such that it really had no impact whatsoever on a person's ability to effectively practise social work, then the inquiry committee would be limited.

N. Simons: This section deals with the necessity to take extraordinary action, on some occasions, to protect the public. Can the minister describe, when this action is taken, what the possible process is for protecting the rights of the social worker, to ensure that they're protected in circumstances such as this?

J. Brar: Visiting us today, we have nine students from Roots and Wings Montessori School located at Highway 10 and 152nd Street. They represent grades 4 to 6. They're also accompanied by the principal of the school, Kristine Cassie, and a teacher, Pam Branco. I would like to ask every member to please make them feel welcome.

Hon. T. Christensen: Section 29 is…. Well, it's exactly as the title suggests. It's extraordinary action to protect the public. An extreme example, perhaps, could be where a registrant of the college was arrested for a sexual assault. The college would likely want to act quickly, particularly if it was a serious sexual assault, and suspend the registration of the member pending a full hearing by the college, potentially pending the result of any criminal proceedings as well.

It is necessary that the college have the ability to take immediate action in extraordinary circumstances and not be required to go fully through the disciplinary process for taking that action. The sort of fail-safe, I guess, around that is subsection (5), which enables the registrant…. If they feel the college has acted inappropriately or hastily and that the action wasn't necessary to protect the public interest, they can take an immediate appeal to the Supreme Court to have the action of the college overturned.

N. Simons: Section 34 deals with the discipline committee of the college of social workers. In subsection (1), on completion of a hearing, the discipline committee has an option of a number of possible responses to that particular infraction. One is to dismiss the matter completely.

I note that there are a number of possible sanctions and dispositions. On the occasion where an investigation has resulted in the committee deciding that no action is taken, is that a finding of wrongdoing or not wrongdoing? And does that social worker have any sort of mechanism in order to — not necessarily for compensation — remediate what action the college may have taken if there was no finding of fault?

Hon. T. Christensen: In the event that a member of the college is accused of something and the college investigates that and the discipline committee holds a hearing and at the end of reviewing the evidence finds that the member hasn't been in breach of the act or of professional standards and dismisses the matter, then the discipline committee itself actually could award them costs to help defray the costs that they may have incurred in having to go to a hearing. That's set out in subsections (2) and (3).

Beyond that, no, there's not any particular entitlement that the registrant has except for, probably, an extreme circumstance where, if the registrant were able to demonstrate that the college had acted far beyond its mandate or in a malicious manner, they may have some civil remedy. But as I say, that's a pretty extreme case and highly unlikely.

The nature of this provision is certainly consistent with other self-governing professions. Part of the nature of being a professional, in fact, is that you are going to be subject to standards, and if you breach them or are alleged to have breached them, you are going to be entitled to due process in terms of a hearing around that. Once you go through that experience, even if you've done nothing wrong, it's very difficult to make you feel, at least, that you haven't lost something.

N. Simons: Section 36 deals with public notification. My question has to do with the definition of "in the public interest." Who makes that determination, and how is that determination made?

Hon. T. Christensen: The determination of whether or not it's in the public interest is the discipline committee's to make. They are guided by section 3 of the act, which sets out the duties and objects of the act overall in determining that public interest. It is they who ultimately make that determination. If they were to make it in a manner that, it could be argued, they weren't serving the public interest, then they would certainly be subject to challenge.

N. Simons: Still on section 36. So there's no way for the particular registered social worker to influence any sort of decision. It'll be set out, I would imagine, in the college's own internal policies and bylaws, when to invoke this public interest clause.

Hon. T. Christensen: Certainly, there would be nothing limiting a registrant who was subject to a disciplinary hearing — and the college — in making arguments before that disciplinary hearing as to what they believed would be in the public interest around notification.

Subsection (2) contemplates circumstances in which the public interest in fact would weigh against disclosure — where it would cause significant hardship to a person who had been harmed by the registrant. It's open to make those arguments, but ultimately it would be the discipline committee who makes that determination as to whether or not notification is in the public interest.

N. Simons: Is there any indication as to how long that public on-line notification would be on the system? Will it apply to all disciplinary action? How will that determination be made?

Hon. T. Christensen: I think the member's question may be answered by section 37, which allows for establishment of an on-line registry that would be required to record certain information including a record of disciplinary action and does provide provision for a registrant, after a five-year period, to apply to have certain information removed.

Whether they can simply apply to have it removed…. It wouldn't be removed by right, and it would be subject to the college determining whether or not they felt it was in the public interest to remove it.

N. Simons: I think we were actually sort of letting those two flow together.

In fact, yes, the issue around concern of the protection of privacy and the protection of…. You know, in the social work profession, it's a significant allegation when anything is made against the character of that individual performing that work.

I just think that extreme caution always needs to be taken in these cases. I think we need to make sure that the actions taken shouldn't be punitive, unless they are supposed to be punitive, and that social workers and people who are affected by this legislation know that it is intended to protect the public interest primarily.

So under the on-line registry, there's going to be a record of any suspension or cancellation of a registrant's certificate of registration. In some of those cases, the infraction might be minor. Is there any provision for ensuring that the general public or whoever has access to this information will be able to determine the nature of that allegation?

Will they be able to determine whether or not it was this jurisdiction that made the finding or the investigation and the finding? Or will, for example, a social worker from another jurisdiction who gets set up here…? Will their record be included on that? Will it be automatically included in their identification on line?

Hon. T. Christensen: The information that might be included from another jurisdiction would be subject to the information-sharing agreements that we talked about before. I certainly would contemplate at this point that the type of information that the college would be looking to share with its college counterparts in other jurisdictions would be similar to the nature of information that's required to be posted here so that the public, in looking at the on-line registry, has fulsome information about the particular registrant's involvement in British Columbia but also in other jurisdictions.

What I would note that responds specifically to the first part of the member's question is subsection (2), which requires that the on-line registry — in sending out a record of any suspension or cancellation of the registrant's certificate of registration — must state the reasons why the disciplinary action was taken so that there is a clear explanation for the public to know and judge for themselves whether the infraction was minor or something that was not minor.

Hon. T. Christensen: I would ask that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 35, Social Workers Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C. Richmond: I call committee stage on Bill 18, intituled Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act, in the hands of the hon. Minister of Environment.

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

S. Simpson: Section 9, the emission reduction projects — proposal, acceptance, verification and emission reduction units issuance — is the section that lays out how this works, essentially, to get an emission reduction project put in place. Maybe we'll start here. Maybe the minister could just give some explanation of what kinds of projects might constitute an emission reduction project for this section.

Hon. B. Penner: We did have a chance to canvass this at some length yesterday and, I think, maybe even the first day that we touched on this in committee stage.

We're talking about the B.C. emission reduction units, which are offsets within the province of British Columbia. I've said that they would have to be incremental — that is, in addition to what would otherwise have taken place in British Columbia.

Some of the examples that I've cited previously include the opportunities for small hydro, or micro-hydro, projects to help rural communities displace their dependence on diesel-generated electricity for their communities and thereby reduce greenhouse gas emissions and probably costs, too, in the long run — anaerobic digesters to help capture the methane and other greenhouse gas emissions that can come from the decomposition of various organic wastes and convert that potentially into electricity to meet our growing electricity needs here in the province of British Columbia.

Of course, people have talked about the concept of afforestation. That is planting trees or other forms of plant life in areas that have not previously, or at least not for a considerable period of time, been forested. So

S. Simpson: When a proposal comes forward or somebody makes a proposition to establish an emission reduction project, how is the assessment of whether and how that project meets the standards of government to qualify for emission reduction units going to be done?

Hon. B. Penner: As noted in section 9(2)(a) of the act, the proponent would have to meet prescribed eligibility criteria in order to qualify.

S. Simpson: I'm suspecting — and I'm sure the minister will be happy to either confirm or disavow this — that the prescribed eligibility criteria will be done under regulation at some time in the future. Having said that, could the minister tell us what kinds of criteria would be considered for eligibility?

Hon. B. Penner: Again, we canvassed this issue at some length yesterday. I'd be happy to provide the member with a copy of the Hansard transcript, if that would assist the member. I know he wasn't present for the debate, but the member for Vancouver-Fairview and I discussed this at some length yesterday.

What I said on a number of occasions is that the eligibility criteria will include the requirement for any offset to be incremental; that is, there is an additionality requirement — high quality and environmentally verifiable. They're going to have to take place in the province of British Columbia.

I know that we have the director who…. I also know from having reviewed a little bit of the transcripts of yesterday's discussions between the minister and my friend from Vancouver-Fairview…. I did get a chance to at least briefly review some of that exchange. I know that the director who will have responsibility for this also has an overall responsibility for much of the content of Bill 18. So it's going to be a very important job that this director has.

In terms of how they do the reviews of projects to determine whether an emission reduction project makes sense, who will do that review? Will that be done by the director or by the director's staff? Or will there be an independent review process? Has that been determined?

Hon. B. Penner: As noted in section 9(2)(b) of the act, the process by which a project plan and associated monitoring and quantification protocol that meet the prescribed requirements may be approved by the director, etc., is mentioned. The director will be making those determinations, I would suspect, with the assistance of Minister of Environment staff and personnel.

Yesterday the member for Vancouver-Fairview seemed to get held up on this idea that there was going to be a single individual — noted in the legislation as the director — doing all this work. I was trying to dispel him of that notion by noting that there are quite a number of people that work for the Ministry of Environment and the environmental protection division generally.

I can be more precise. We did canvass this somewhat in estimates. I know the member for Vancouver-Fairview didn't benefit from that debate. There are almost 293 FTEs in the Ministry of Environment, for the environmental protection division, and those would be people in the ministry doing various things in pursuit of our environmental objectives.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that, and I appreciate that there are a number of people in the ministry who could potentially take on responsibility for this kind of review. I take it from the minister's answer that the director will have the ability to access other people within the ministry to take on a number of tasks on behalf of his or her responsibilities, including this kind of review.

Could the minister tell us: who within the Ministry of Environment, in terms of the personnel there, might have responsibility for doing this kind of review, and would the review be public?

Hon. B. Penner: I would expect that the director would rely on the ministry's staff to assist him or her in the appropriate determination. There could be new staff hired, as well, to help with this, and we talked about that the other day.

The Minister of Environment will comply with all requirements of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. In addition, I would expect that a number of businesses would be trading these credits in a public way, so that information would become public through that mechanism as well.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the answer. It's not exactly the answer to the question I asked, but maybe I can clarify the question a little better for the minister.

I accept the minister's comment in his previous answer that the ministry has 300-odd staff who work around in jurisdictions that might relate to doing some of this kind of work. Those ministry staff would in some way be available to the director. Now the minister says the director may have the ability to hire additional staff that would come under his or her direction to do this work.

But getting back to the ministry staff for a minute, my question was: who within the ministry staff, within current staffing, actually has those qualifications, that experience or that responsibility to be able to do the review that would determine an emission reduction project and satisfy themselves that they were in fact going to be able to meet the requirements of section 9? Who in the ministry staff today — not individuals, but positions — has the ability to do this work?

Hon. B. Penner: I've been advised we likely have a limited number who are trained in this particular kind of work or would be able to do this work today. But with the lead time that we have, we will definitely be ramping up our capabilities in terms of staff training and/or acquiring that type of talent through new hiring or some other means.

S. Simpson: Maybe just a question that relates to that answer by the minister. Could the minister just clarify for us: how much lead time does he believe he has to get this all in place for when we're actually going to need it?

Hon. B. Penner: As you know, we're working towards a timeline of August of this year in terms of the rough framework within the western climate initiative. At that time, the WCI will be releasing a new set of directions and recommendations. I think that will give us some indication about just how much time we'll have.

I'm pretty confident that we'll have time to get additional staff tuned up in terms of what is required in terms of an offset to meet the stringent requirements that they be verifiable, incremental and of course located within the province of British Columbia.

S. Simpson: Maybe I can get the minister to be a little bit more specific than that. Does the minister think that we're talking 2010 or late 2009 or sometime after 2010? What's the minister's thinking about that in general terms? I know I won't try to tie him down to a month and a year, but maybe we could at least go for a year.

Hon. B. Penner: There's no firm date yet. As I said, there's still some process to follow here with our WCI partners. In the meantime the ministry is looking at what we need to do in terms of getting our staff prepared for this.

S. Simpson: Just a couple more questions around this section. I'm trying to understand how this section and how this process can be used by industry in British Columbia that's looking to offset their emissions in order to allow them to proceed with their activities and still be in compliance with Bill 18.

I wanted to provide a bit of a scenario and see whether this scenario would be a possibility, as far as the minister is concerned, under Bill 18. If we look in the natural gas sector, or the oil and gas sector, for example, or in mining, in the coal sector — one of those sectors where we have significant emissions and where those industries are going to be challenged….

Maybe in cement. We know there are going to be challenges in the cement industry as well. We've already heard from them, and we know that they're coming to meet with government officials, secretariat officials and others on Friday, I believe — if news reports are to be believed — to talk about how they deal with their emissions and whether they can get further relief from the government. But that's a different bill and a different discussion.

One of those industries, for example, who have those concerns — in cement, in forestry, maybe in oil and gas production…. Would they be in a position, for example, to say, "All right. We're going to go and purchase either a significant share or all of a run-of-the-river project that's up. We're going to purchase that company, or we're going to purchase a significant share of that company and then be able to use potential, be able to apply emission reduction units against the run-of-the-river project and then use those to offset our activity, say, in coal or cement or natural gas," in order to not have to try to meet the standards that may be challenging for them around allowance units? Is that something that would be doable in the minister's view under this act?

Hon. B. Penner: As I stated earlier and yesterday as well, any person or entity hoping to establish a B.C. emission reduction unit will have to establish that their project will result in real, incremental — that is, in addition to anything else — emission reductions. They're going to have to take place in British Columbia, and they're going to have to be verifiable. So it's going to have to be something that wouldn't have taken place unless this new initiative had already occurred.

S. Simpson: Maybe we'll just follow that up a little bit. I completely understand the notion that it has to be in British Columbia, it has to be verifiable and all of those things. It makes good sense, and I understand that.

There could be any number of projects that may or may not occur in the province, depending on markets, capital to invest, interest and all of that, including, for example, some of the renewable energy projects that we've discussed here before in other instances.

Is there anything to stop a company like what we're talking about, a large emitter, one of the large emitters in the province, from making that arrangement to purchase or establish a renewable energy company, a run-of-the-river project, for example, and say: "You know, this project never would have happened. We're putting it in place because it supports our objectives to meet our emissions under Bill 18"? Otherwise it never would have occurred, even though we know that there are a number of these projects occurring.

So how will the ministry decide whether a project might have occurred with or without this challenge of trying to create emission reduction projects? Do you pretty much just have to take the proponent's word for it when they say: "We'd never have got involved in this or never have done this if we weren't looking to create an emission reduction project"? Even though it may be something where there are numerous similar projects operating in the province, who's to say that this one would have occurred without this incentive to be able to get emission reduction units to apply against other activities?

Hon. B. Penner: I think what the member may be missing here is that all along I've been saying that you're going to have to demonstrate and verify an incremental or additional decrease in emissions as a result of your offset project. You can't just claim it. You can't just go out there and say that it's happening. You have to be able to demonstrate that.

As a result of whatever your project is — whether it's afforestation or the example I gave, a small community wanting to wean itself off of a diesel generator and instead having a small hydro project come along to supply electricity to the community — you're going to have to demonstrate in a way that is verifiable and will withstand an audit that there's now been a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in order to obtain that B.C. emission reduction unit.

One BCERU is to be equal to one tonne of greenhouse gas emissions or CO2 equivalent. In order to get that one BCERU, you're going to have to demonstrate in a verifiable way that there's been a net reduction of at least one tonne of CO2 emissions.

I know that we have a very significant disagreement about what role run-of-the-river hydroelectric projects can play in British Columbia in meeting our energy needs. Keeping the lights on in this building…. There are more than 100 lights just in this chamber alone.

I know that across the province our population is growing, and people are using more electricity, not less. So the challenge is to foster conservation, which my colleague the Minister of Energy and B.C. Hydro are busy doing. But we also have to plan for the future. Realistically, that means we have to consider additional sources of electricity.

I know that the opposition has taken a position that they want a moratorium on run-of-the-river projects, these clean projects that don't generate greenhouse gas emissions. We disagree. That is not consistent with a climate change agenda about becoming self-sufficient in electricity again and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. You can't square that circle if you're going to say no to renewable energy projects.

It's not just me that says this. I'll refer to an article recently in the Powell River Peak newspaper. The front page headline: "Klahoose Chief Blasts NDP River Stance." I'll quote from Ken Brown, the Chief of the Klahoose First Nation. "'What whiz kid in the NDP brain trust came up with the idea of opposing sustainable run-of-river green power developments?' Brown asked. 'Their extensive research did not include getting a first nations perspective on the situation or evaluating the effect of first nations votes on election night.'"

We believe that there is a win-win situation available to British Columbians. It's through the responsible use of our renewable energy sources in British Columbia — whether it's wind, geothermal or, potentially, tidal power and run-of-river projects — working in partnership in many cases with first nations communities.

We see an opportunity for them to have an economic advantage or boost to their situation, to see some hope and prosperity, to remove their dependency on diesel in their remote and rural communities and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the same time and help us keep the lights on — and, frankly, broadcast debates like this to British Columbians.

You can't do it without electricity. That's why we think these are positive solutions. We're trying to be constructive, and we're looking for bright ideas, but frankly, all we hear from the opposition is negativity. If they have a constructive suggestion to make, I'm all ears.

S. Simpson: I'm not exactly sure what that all has to do with Bill 18, but I'm glad the minister got it off his chest.

The question that I had here and what I'm trying to understand…. I accept that the minister says it needs to be a new project. It provides for emission reduction units, so it provides for some ability here to offset their emissions. What I'm trying to understand….

The minister maybe can try this again. If I have a significant company that has significant emissions — one of the large emitters, for example, in the province…. We know that there are 40 or however many of those, depending on where you set the thresholds.

Large emitters need to find ways to reduce their emissions. They're going to need to meet their limits under allowance units to be able to have allowance units. We know that. I suspect we're going to find that what they want to do and what they need to do is find ways to reduce or potentially offset some of their emissions, certainly in the first few years, maybe in cases where technology still needs to be worked out.

For example, we know that the announcement the minister was at around carbon capture and storage the other day…. It will be 2012, I think it is on that project, before the feasibility work is done. Then should they find that it's a project that works in terms of large-scale carbon capture and storage, it may take a number of years after that to actually build a facility. So we get quite a few years out from when I suspect, or I would hope, that Bill 18 and any cap-and-trade program will come into force.

In that interim period it may well be that large companies like Spectra are going to need to find a way to offset. Using emission reduction units clearly may be one of the ways that they look to do that.

I'm trying to determine how they establish or set up a project that meets the qualifications of the government to allow them to offset. Could they use renewable energy to do that? Could they use some other projects to do that? How does that all happen? That's what I'm trying to determine here. What could or couldn't be allowed to happen under that kind of scenario?

Hon. B. Penner: The proponent who submits a proposal for verification and therefore a credit in terms of a B.C. emission reduction unit will have to demonstrate a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions — something that's incremental, something that's in addition.

This is something that I've been talking about now for quite a while here. I've given a list of examples. Energy efficiency is another one. Anaerobic digestion

and the potential to generate electricity there. Fuel switching, and again, the small hydro example that we've already talked about.

The short answer is yes. Someone could seek to get a B.C. emission reduction unit, but they're going to have to show a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

S. Simpson: Again, just in relation to this. In terms of how these projects get established, what is the process here? I accept that the government has been very clear that it wants these projects in British Columbia if at all possible. There's a little bit of opportunity for other WCI partners, but clearly the government's intention is that the large majority of these projects should be British Columbia projects. Is there a public part of the process around how these projects get established? Is there some kind of public reporting here? Or are the reports available so that….

If I own a company and I look to set up a reduction project to help offset some of the emissions, whatever it might be — tree planting, renewable energy, any of the possibilities that the minister talked about, or possibly others — how do I or how does the government or the director have to publicize that — or do they? — so that interested members of the public understand how that company is hoping to meet their reduction targets or their requirements under cap-and-trade so that they have some ability to comment on this to the minister or the director or whoever is appropriate about whether they think this is a good approach, a good project, whether they believe that it meets the standards of public interest and the standards set by government?

Hon. B. Penner: The government will be responsible for maintaining a registry, and we could contract or make use of the Climate Registry, which we've already joined and that originated in California, for the purposes of tracking the B.C. allowance units, the compliance units and the B.C. emission reduction units that individual companies are making use of. The public will have a chance to see, through that registry, how individual companies have met their overall cap, how they manage to operate and to what extent they've made use of B.C. emission reduction units versus compliance units versus their authorization or allowance units.

S. Simpson: Now, just so I can confirm again, and I'm sure the minister told us this. Recognized compliance units — those are units that could come, for example, from another WCI partner, their units. These would be ones that the British Columbia government, the government under the structure around Bill 18, would recognize as a legitimate compliance unit and allow a B.C. company to purchase that unit or acquire that unit for the purposes of balancing their emissions. Is that essentially correct?

S. Simpson: Maybe we'll deal with that answer first and then I'll get into the questions I have around how these units will work.

Subject to limits. Could the minister clarify for us what "subject to limits" means?

Hon. B. Penner: Just going back in words a little bit, subsection 2(3)(a) of the act gives us the authority to limit the quantity of RCUs or regulated compliance units.

S. Simpson: This is a section…. I know that this becomes a little complex, and I'm sure if other partners come into the WCI, it gets increasingly complex as you have more jurisdictions, all of whom potentially have different long-term targets.

When I look at the draft recommendations — the WCI recommendations — it says that the WCI has a regional goal of a 15 percent reduction below 2005 levels by 2020 which, of course, is significantly less than the B.C.-legislated reduction of 33 percent by 2020 from 2007 levels. There's quite a difference in terms of what the WCI is framing its work around, in terms of the regional goal for this 15 percent reduction versus British Columbia, which is at least double that.

Does that create a challenge in terms of how you value compliance units? When some jurisdictions are looking at a different…. This is about putting a price on emissions. The price on emissions, to some degree, is linked to how much you want to change behaviour and drive those emissions down. We in British Columbia obviously have a bigger challenge than some of the partners in the WCI itself, because it's looking at about half the emissions reduction that's being legislated in British Columbia.

Does that create a problem in terms of compliance units and how they get used and how they get valued? I'm just trying to figure that one out in my own head.

Hon. B. Penner: No, we don't believe so. In fact, the reason we're involved with the western climate initiative is, frankly, so that B.C. industry can take advantage of these recognized compliance units. This is the trading component of a cap-and-trade system. This is what allows industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at lowest cost — by going out on the market and purchasing credible, verifiable emission reduction units that have to equate to one tonne.

So whether it's from California, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, Manitoba, Quebec or British Columbia — who are all signatories to the WCI — one emission reduction unit, or one compliance unit, will have to be equal to one tonne of CO2 equivalent in terms of emissions.

S. Simpson: I'll try to explain this better, because I don't think I did a very good job of explaining what I think the issue is. Maybe this hasn't been sorted out

If British Columbia interests need to drive down their emissions by a significantly greater percentage than our counterparts — other WCI partners — is it possible, then, that compliance units could end up being valued differently? The same compliance unit could be valued differently for a jurisdiction in the United States, where their emission reduction target is not as great, versus British Columbia, where the emission reduction target is more significant and, arguably, the challenge is greater. So it's a bit of a supply and demand issue.

We need them a little more in British Columbia because we're pushing down harder. It's more aggressive, if we're going to get to 33 percent by 2020. We need to be more aggressive, possibly, than if we're looking to get to 15 percent by 2020. I know there are a lot of other circumstances and conditions that apply and that that's somewhat simplistic. But still, the pressure is going to be greater in British Columbia to meet the legislated target than in a jurisdiction where the target is much less.

Is it possible that compliance units could end up being sold at a premium to British Columbia companies — essentially, because they need them more — than they might be costed to a company or an industry or party in another jurisdiction where their expectations about reductions and emissions aren't as high?

Hon. B. Penner: We don't believe the recognized compliance units will be priced differently if it's a British Columbia business seeking to purchase them or one in California, Oregon, New Mexico, Utah, Montana, Manitoba or Quebec. Just as a single share that's issued for equity in a company is traded at the same price regardless of who's seeking to purchase it. Or a barrel of apples. My parents used to have an apple farm. They sold those apples at the same price no matter who was stopping by to buy them.

We anticipate that recognized compliance units will sell at whatever the price is established by the market. Whether it's a B.C. company seeking to purchase it or one in Oregon, the cost should be the same.

S. Simpson: Well, what we know, of course, is that with companies that have shares and are traded publicly, those shares have a value at the door. But depending on who wants them and who's prepared to pay more for them, because they're more desirable to them…. I want to buy a company. I want to buy interest in a company. I want to take it over. I make an offer. My offer…. If it's better than yours, maybe I get to buy the company or the shares.

Even though that share is on the market at a value, that's not necessarily where it sells. It often sells at a different price than that, depending how much I may want it versus other suitors for that share.

Does the minister see the potential for that to occur in this situation — something of that nature? Again, because in British Columbia it's possible because of the legislated targets that we have that they may be more required, they may be more desirable…. There may be any number of reasons why British Columbia companies might say we really need some of those shares.

There's a limited number because, as the minister said, the government may very well make the decision that it will limit the number of compliance units that are made available in British Columbia. So it's not a bottomless well in that sense. They're dealing with a more valuable commodity or product because it has to have limited numbers available in British Columbia.

Could they be agreeing and buying those for prices over and above what the market says it's worth today because the market in B.C. is worth more? Can that happen?

Hon. B. Penner: No, we don't believe the scenario the member is articulating is going to occur. We've looked at what has taken place in Europe. For example, different countries there have different objectives in terms of greenhouse gas emission reductions for their particular jurisdiction, and yet they're part of the European trading system for greenhouse gas emission allowances.

So we don't believe that you'll see that kind of discrepancy in price that the member describes. I think the member is also, perhaps, overlooking the fact that the cap-and-trade system is not the only mechanism we're looking to, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It's a significant one.

So was a carbon tax, which is revenue-neutral but will put a price signal on the cost of carbon. The more intense in terms of carbon content a particular fuel is, the more, all things being equal, you'll have to pay for it. It sends the signal to shift to lower intensity carbon-emitting fuels. So that's another very significant piece of our climate change agenda, along with energy efficiency incentives and other initiatives that we're undertaking, like renewable energy projects in B.C., that this side of the Legislature, at least, supports.

I note, however, that the federal NDP today announced plans for a cap-and-trade system while eschewing carbon taxes. So they're only looking at one mechanism, yet say that they're going to achieve an 80 percent reduction by the year 2050 by only addressing half of the emissions in Canada — that is, emissions that come from the large industrial emitters, which constitute about half of all greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, or to be generous, about 350 megatonnes.

I don't know how you can achieve an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions if you're only going to be looking at 50 percent of the problem. Somehow that math doesn't add up.

Further, I just note that the federal NDP plan today announced by Mr. Layton claims that by charging $35 per tonne for allowances under the NDP's proposed cap-and-trade system, that will net out to $2.5 billion in revenue going to the treasury in Ottawa — collected

from all the provinces and sent to Ottawa to be dispensed there out of the central treasury.

We can all discuss whether we think we want more tax dollars or dollars from B.C. going to Ottawa, but what's clear on the face of it is that the NDP didn't get their math right yet again. If you do the math, Canada's overall greenhouse gas emissions are more than 700 megatonnes. But let's just be generous and say that it's only 700 megatonnes. I think there were actually 743 megatonnes at last report. But if we assume it's 700, and you cut it in half to 350 to represent the large industrial emitters, and you multiply 350 by $35 a tonne, you actually come out to $12.5 billion, not $2.5 billion.

So I think somebody needs to get another battery for their calculator, because that math just doesn't add up. Nor, in my mind, does their math add up that they're going to achieve an 80 percent reduction if they're only looking at half the emissions.

S. Simpson: I'm sure that we'll get to see whether the B.C. Liberal math adds up over getting to the reductions that have been claimed by this government to be made too. We'll get our chance between now and 2020 to see whether that math adds up as well.

The things, of course, that the federal NDP did say today…. What they did say is that they would put a price and not an allocation and would head to a full auction of emission permits, and that's something that we think makes good sense. They did say that their proposition is to come from 740 megatonnes at 2005 levels to about 450 megatonnes by 2020, and that's the objective.

They have at least talked about a system that is verifiable, a system where they put some numbers on it, unlike Bill 18, where there are no numbers. There's a rough framework here, but nothing to tell us what it really means. I guess we won't know that until some time in the future, and that is the flaw with Bill 18. The flaw is not cap-and-trade. The flaw is the total lack of substantive information in the bill itself.

The challenge around compliance units…. This becomes a bit of a challenge as well. The minister talked about some of these other matters. What we do know, as well, is that the circumstances we find ourselves in, in British Columbia, in terms of moving forward with some of these plans, could change dramatically before the WCI plan is even intended to come into play. That could happen, depending on the results of the U.S. presidential elections.

You have three candidates in the U.S. presidential election, all saying that they're prepared to bring in a cap-and-trade program. I believe they've all said — at least the Democratic candidates and I think the Republican candidate as well — that they would fully auction that plan. I know there's some hope that if the WCI proceeds and does its work, it may become the model for whatever a national plan in the United States is. Time will tell on that. But that certainly could overtake the discussion that goes on in the WCI.

I think what we also know is that certainly the current Prime Minister has at least talked about cap-and-trade as a model that he is supportive of, and he has mused about putting a program in place, a national cap-and-trade, maybe one that is connected. Maybe it's a North American plan that he ultimately talks about, should he still be sitting in the Prime Minister's chair after the next election. That is, maybe, what he talks about with whoever the new President of the United States is. That could change dramatically what happens in British Columbia and how things get valued.

So that's part of the reason, as well, for trying to get some understanding of where all of this is going in terms of these compliance units.

It's not a matter of not recognizing the value of them and the need to have compliance units within the WCI. The reason for doing the market is to allow that trade to be across jurisdictions. That makes sense, and I support that. But the devil, to some degree, will be in the details on all of this. As I've said before, there are no details in Bill 18. That's the problem with the piece of legislation.

I'm still trying to understand. Is the government saying that while the market will play the role…? This will be market-driven. Market-driven, for me, usually means that the market decides what's up and what's down and what the price will be based on supply and demand. Certainly, compliance units will be a big supply-and-demand issue potentially, especially in the early years when technology is still looking to be developed, to bring emissions down. It's going to take some time.

I know that the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Energy the other day announced the carbon capture-and-storage initiative, along with industry, and invested $3.4 million in some feasibility work. I think that's a good thing to do, but it's going to take some time for that feasibility work to be completed, to determine if it meets the objectives that everybody thinks it can meet, at a price and in a way that makes sense, and then to proceed and actually build the facility, a significant facility, to actually do the work. That's going to take time.

So it's in those years between now and then — which is going to get us pretty close to 2020 by the time this thing gets done; if it's 2012, for example, to get the feasibility done…. If it moves forward, it's then some time to build what will be a complex facility.

Is there anything here that would stop speculation or, in fact, regulate the market? What the minister says that he doesn't believe will occur is different prices for compliance units in British Columbia than in other jurisdictions. Is there anything here that makes it the case that it can't occur?

Hon. B. Penner: We are working to establish a common market with our western climate initiative partners, and it will be that market that will establish the price. Just as governments don't need to step in and tell the market what price you should buy or sell individual shares for, if you're talking about a particular company, nor did the government have to come along and tell my parents what price to charge for apples and what price their customers should be paying for those

apples at the side of the road, I don't believe we'll need to do that in order to have the market set the price, amongst willing buyers and willing sellers, for carbon emission allowances or units. That's the whole purpose of a market system — to let the market set the price.

I know the NDP is somewhat averse to the whole concept of markets and are somewhat foreign to the idea. Notably, the NDP discussion today in Ottawa is saying they're going to set a price of $35 for their proposed cap-and-trade system.

Well, how do they know that the market price is going to be $35? Is that the right price signal to achieve reductions? I don't know. But the idea with the cap-and-trade system is to let the market set that price.

I don't want to talk too much about what the member's federal leader has committed to. At least they put forward something. We're still waiting here to see what the provincial NDP is planning to do, but at least their federal leader has put out something. It amounts to about three and a half pages in English. Their Bill C-377 is three and a half pages, yet the member says that's more robust than our Bill 18, which is 24 pages — by my estimation, about eight times longer.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that the minister wants to talk about the number of pages. You can't talk about the content, because there's nothing in the content. So you'd better talk about the number of pages, because you sure don't want to talk about the content of the bill.

The minister just said that the market will deal with this. Now, if that's the case, I look in the draft recommendations of the western climate initiative on page 13, under "Allocations," which includes allowances, and I look down through the recommendations — "Distribution of allowances by partners." It says: "Allowances will be issued by each partner rather than issued by a regional organization." So the partners will have them, but it goes on to say: "Allowances will be of equivalent use and value throughout the WCI region, regardless of which partner issues the allowances."

I understand that everybody issues them at the same value, that that's agreed to. Fair enough. But what I don't hear here is anything saying: "Does this mean…?" Or maybe the minister can clarify for me, if he knows. Does this mean, then, that the partners are going to be told by the WCI that they need to regulate those values so that there aren't discrepancies in the values of those allowances or, in this case, compliance units, which are allowances — any discrepancy in those values between the jurisdictions?

If that is the case and that is what it's saying, isn't that a contradiction to what the minister just told us about letting the market deal with this?

Hon. B. Penner: I think the member is somewhat confused. Referring to page 13 of the draft recommendations which were discussed in Salt Lake City last week, partway down the page is, "allowances will be issued by each partner" — yadda, yadda, yadda — and then: "Allowances will be of equivalent use and value throughout the WCI region, regardless of which partner issues the allowances."

By "equivalent use and value," what we're talking about here is that one unit must equal the equivalent of one tonne of CO2 equivalent in terms of emissions. The market will establish the price. I can't make it more simple than that.

The whole idea of the cap-and-trade system is to set an overall cap in terms of the emissions that you're going to permit into the atmosphere from a portion of the economy — in this case, large industrial emitters — and over time ratchet down the amount of allowances that you're permitting.

Within that cap or under that cap, industry gets to make some decisions. They have to decide if they can more cost-effectively reduce emissions at their own plant or, effectively, pay somebody else to reduce their emissions above and beyond the emissions that that other company already has to achieve in order to overall drive down the emissions under the cap that's been established.

S. Simpson: I'm just going to make a comment here. I'm not sure this constitutes quite a question around this section, but we'll see, and then I'll be done here.

The confusion is starting to rain from the other side. The minister a moment ago said that he doesn't see the possibility that British Columbia companies may have a greater requirement for these units than industries in other parts of the WCI may have, because we are requiring to drive our emissions down more quickly. To some degree, it's uncertain.

I guess we'll have to wait to see what the Climate Action Team says about 2012 and 2016 targets, because that will have some impact on this. If the Climate Action Team comes back with recommendations and if the government accepts those recommendations that suggest that we start to move, by 2012 and 2016, those emissions down more quickly than may be occurring today, that may increase the demand, as well, on what a compliance unit is.

I still don't see where the minister has explained what assurances there are that British Columbians won't pay a premium for that or maybe saying that if the market is to bear this out, then, in fact, British Columbia companies could end up paying a premium over and above whatever the face value of a compliance unit is, because the market will drive that value up. That may be what he's saying can occur now. I guess we'll get to see.

S. Simpson: Section 13 deals with compliance units generally. Under section 13(3) it says that a B.C. allowance unit or a B.C. emission reduction unit "is not a property right and does not represent an authorization

to do anything that is not otherwise lawful." Could the minister explain just a little bit about what the implication is of not being a property right versus being a property right?

Hon. B. Penner: This section, which I'm told is modelled to some extent on similar U.S. legislation, makes it clear that compensation is not payable by the government if there are reductions in the availability of those units from one compliance period to the next. Clearly, with the cap-and-trade system, our intention is over time to ratchet down the total amount of allowances or emissions that are permitted to take place from the industrial sector.

We want to make it clear that although in one compliance period the government may issue a certain number of allowances, that doesn't mean someone's got a legal right to expect a continuing similar number of allowances for the next compliance period. Actually, our hope is to do the opposite.

S. Simpson: The compliance unit tracking system. Section 14 deals with what that system looks like and some of the requirements of the system. The minister spoke earlier about the potential of some centralized operation, maybe in the WCI. What is the minister's thinking on whether this will be a B.C. system or a system that is in the broader WCI?

Hon. B. Penner: As I mentioned earlier during debate this afternoon on a previous section, we are envisioning a compliance unit tracking system. That's what section 14 talks about specifically. That is to track the units.

It would be a central database to track ownership of the compliance units. It's likely to enable the trading and banking activities of the cap-and-trade system. As I had noted earlier, it will be the responsibility of the B.C. government to determine whether we want to do this in-house or perhaps rely on the already existing Climate Registry, an organization that was formulated in California and now has accepted membership with other jurisdictions. There are quite a number of jurisdictions who have at least nominally indicated their interest in going along with the central registry called The Climate Registry.

S. Simpson: What are the considerations for the minister and the government over whether to do this in-house as a B.C. system or to essentially hand over, to some degree, the authority for establishing this to the WCI or to whatever the regional body is created under the WCI?

Hon. B. Penner: We haven't made that determination yet about whether we would want to rely on The Climate Registry or have the province do it here. We do know that the objective is to make sure that there is compatibility with the other entities within the WCI so that in effect, when we're tracking things, we're comparing apples to apples, to go back to my parents' former hobby farm again, or oranges to oranges, in the case of California.

S. Simpson: The decision about whether to do this either in-house or as part of the WCI — what's the timing on that? I suspect that if the government wants to move forward on putting cap-and-trade in place in as expeditious a manner as possible and to do it as quickly as is reasonable, putting that tracking system and that unit in will be one of the early requirements to make this work. So what does the minister believe is the time line for the government to be required to make a decision about which way to go on this?

Hon. B. Penner: Government will be addressing that issue once we get the WCI workplan and other things developed by August of this year. What I expect out of that process is that there'll be some more consultation and input received following August 2008, once people see the greater level of specificity about what's anticipated through the WCI process and what the various partners of WCI are putting forward as recommendations.

S. Simpson: Just a quick question in regard to 15. I see where it talks about the authority to establish the system. When I read through here, it suggests that if a system is set up under this act, etc…. It makes no reference here to the possibility, I don't believe, of setting this up separately or through the WCI.

Is there another place where that occurs — the authority to kind of hand the system over to somebody else versus establishing it directly under this act?

Hon. B. Penner: The member is correct. Section 15 does talk about administrative authority for the compliance unit tracking system. But looking ahead, subsection 40(a) of the act also goes into some detail around the establishment of a compliance unit tracking system and some of the limitations that can be placed on that.

S. Simpson: Section 17 talks about administrative penalties. In particular, section 17 talks about auto-

matic administrative penalties, the failure to retire compliance units at the appropriate time when that's required to happen. It talks about "in the case of an administrative penalty." I know it references this in other places in the sections around administrative penalties. It talks about the penalty that is "a monetary amount."

I presume that since it talks about that as an option, there's the option for penalties to take another form or forms. What other forms does the minister envision administrative penalties possibly taking?

Hon. B. Penner: I think subsection 17(3) helps answer the member's question. The party can be required to retire the existing compliance units that they're already obligated to retire plus an additional number as a form of an administrative penalty.

S. Simpson: I'll kind of make this a connection. I'll talk about it in the context of section 18, but it also has an implication for 19. In subsection 18(1), under "Imposed administrative penalties: failure to retire compliance units," it says here that the director "must" take action. Yet "Administrative penalties in relation to other matters" in section 19 says that the director "may" take action.

What's the decision for "must" versus "may"? We've discussed "shall" versus "may" before — presumably the same thing. "Must" and "shall" are close enough. Why is it that they must apply the penalties for compliance units but not necessarily in other matters?

Hon. B. Penner: Section 18 effectively cuts to the core of the matter here, which is that we want companies to reduce their emissions, and to do that, they must retire their compliance units. Failure to do that in the way they're required to is a fundamental breach of the whole concept of our cap-and-trade regime that we're debating here.

In comparison, section 19 talks about non-compliance with requirements other than the retirement of these compliance units, which are core to the whole system.

S. Simpson: Under section 18 — where the director must take action, in the section that the action gets taken — the penalties, based on what the minister has said, could be a fine, a monetary penalty. They could be the removal of some units, which puts some additional pressures on the company's or industry's ability to operate if they're right on the bubble in terms of their emissions and their units to apply against those emissions.

I believe it's under section 3 or a little bit farther on that there's some ability to appeal. It talks about the ability to appeal to the Environmental Appeal Board. If there's an appeal in process under this section, then I assume that everything just gets set aside while the appeal process goes on and there's some determination around the appeal.

Hon. B. Penner: Section 42 of the act provides authority to make regulations with respect to appeals and the process and what takes place.

Just to draw an analogy, currently people can make appeals to the Environmental Appeal Board for various decisions made by statutory decision–makers within the Ministry of Environment today. Sometimes the party seeking an appeal will ask the appeal board to stay the decision of the statutory decision–maker pending a full hearing of the merits of their appeal. Sometimes that stay request is granted; sometimes it isn't.

Just exactly what the test is for that decision by the appeal board, I wouldn't be able to recite off the top of my head. I know that fairly recently there were companies that weren't happy about a certain air quality permit or air emissions permit issued by a statutory decision–maker in the Ministry of Environment.

They went to the B.C. Environmental Appeal Board, asked the board to stay that decision of the statutory decision–maker until they could thrash out all the merits or potential demerits of that decision and whether any errors were made in law or process. Ultimately, the appeal board, in terms of that decision, has said that the new permit will apply, and they will now consider the merits. So in effect, they have not stayed the permit that was issued.

I don't know exactly what will happen. It may be a case-by-case situation, where individuals or parties will have to make the case to the appeal board that a decision should be held in abeyance or stayed pending a full hearing of the merits of the matter.

S. Simpson: Just a couple of quick questions on 19, coming back to the question I referenced in regard to 18. In section 18 it is very prescriptive. The director must take action if it relates to the retirement of compliance units under that section. They are obligated to. The director has discretion, under section 19, when it relates to other matters.

Could the minister tell us why section 19 was made discretionary for the minister? I understand why 20 is. The director is compelled to take action if they find a problem. I understand that. Why was it eased up in 19?

Hon. B. Penner: Quite often statutory decision–makers are given discretion, and that's what section 19 reflects. However, as I noted, section 18 is very core to the whole basis of the legislation and a cap-and-trade system. That's about reducing or surrendering the compliance units that have been issued. In that regard, we're making it very clear what the statutory decision–maker is expected to do.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us…? It says: "Administrative penalties in relation to other matters." Could the minister give us an idea of what those other matters might be?

Hon. B. Penner: One example would be the various reporting requirements in sections 3 and 4 of the act.

S. Simpson: Section 22 relates to appeals to the Environmental Appeal Board. With these matters that go through the appeal board — and it's just for my clarification on this — I assume that decisions of the appeal board could be taken to court if somebody wasn't happy with the appeal board decision. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Penner: My understanding is that if someone's not satisfied at the end of an environmental appeal process, they do have the opportunity to seek a judicial review of that decision. I believe that would be to the B.C. Supreme Court.

Hon. B. Penner: I move the amendment to section 23 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

S. Simpson: Just in terms of the amounts of the fines, the penalties are quite significant in section 23. Could the minister tell us what the process is for determining what those fines or penalties might be under this section?

Hon. B. Penner: Section 23(4), as the member knows, says: "A person convicted of an offence under this section is liable to a fine of not more than $1 000 000 or imprisonment for a term of not more than 6 months, or both. " That is consistent with federal legislation. One of the things we're trying to keep an eye on here is equivalency with any regime that Ottawa may come along with, so we want to make sure that our legislation is consistent with theirs.

In terms of what a judge will actually impose at the end of the day, to some extent your guess is as good as mine. Mine should be better. I spent some time at law school and practised for a little bit, but ultimately, it's very hard to know with certainty what the judge will impose.

S. Simpson: Section 24 lists offences for providing false or misleading information and penalties. Now, 24(1) says that a person "who knowingly provides false or misleading information" is up for a potential conviction of the $1 million fine or the six months that the minister talked about.

Then, in 24(2), unless I'm reading this wrong, the wording is essentially the same, excluding the word "knowingly." So it wasn't a knowing or a malicious decision to do that. The person convicted under that particular piece of the law would be up for $500,000 of fines or six months of imprisonment.

Yet when we go to subsection (3), it says that a person is not guilty of an offence under subsection (2) if they establish that they didn't know, essentially, that it was false or misleading information.

Could the minister explain a little bit about sort of how (2) and (3) work? I'd assume that subsection (2), since it removed the word "knowingly," presumed it was somebody who did not know that they were doing this. Then subsection (3) says that if you didn't know, you're probably not guilty of anything.

Hon. B. Penner: What the legislation recognizes is that there is a difference between someone deliberately, knowingly, wilfully doing something versus forgetting to do something or not exercising enough care — in other words, being negligent. So the act recognizes that there is a difference, in terms of consequences, in whether someone is wilfully breaking the law or it's happening due to negligence.

S. Simpson: One question there. Now, we know that we could be facing million-dollar fines under the offences section. So am I to read in "Continuing offences" that if section 25 was adopted at its maximum, it could be a million dollars a day?

Hon. B. Penner: Yes, potentially. But note the words "on conviction." Obviously, the courts would have to have their say.

S. Simpson: I'm not sure what this particular section is, so I'll ask the minister to explain it. It says: "Section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply to this Act or the regulations." What is section 5 of the Offence Act?

Hon. B. Penner: That's kind of the default position for provincial legislation. Section 5 of the Offence Act contains a basic penalty provision that applies to contraventions in regulatory legislation that is otherwise silent. With respect to penalties and offences, if memory serves, that penalty under section 5 of the Offence Act is up to $5,000 and/or six months in jail upon conviction.

S. Simpson: So if I read this section about the time limits for laying an information for an offence under the act, I understand that it's three years from the date.

S. Simpson: Yeah, we've got lots of time. Three years from the date. If the minister completes a certificate saying that they're aware of it, it's 18 months.

So essentially, here we have a statute of limitations of sorts of three years from the time that the offence occurred — is that correct? — and 18 months if the government is aware of the offence and the minister completes a certificate to that.

Hon. B. Penner: The three-year statutory limitation period can be extended by virtue of section 28(2)(b), which contemplates: "…18 months after the date that the facts on which the information is based first came to the knowledge of the minister."

S. Simpson: This suggests when investigations need to commence. It says that the chief conservation officer needs to acknowledge the regulation within 20 days. Is there any requirement on when that investigation actually has to commence?

Hon. B. Penner: Section 31 ties in with 32, if you'll see. It talks about progress reports required every 90 days on the progress of the investigation and the action, if any, that the chief conservation officer has taken.

Hon. B. Penner: I move the amendment to section 36 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

Hon. B. Penner: Hon. Chair, the Clerk suggests that I move the amendment to section 36.1.

Hon. B. Penner: I move the amendment to section 37 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

S. Simpson: It's really just to say here, because I am noting the hour, that this is…. Well, cap-and-trade is an important system, and we look forward to actually having legislation come into force.

I think what we would have to say is that this legislation really doesn't offer us anything of substance, and it would be much more helpful for the government to have taken this bill away, to have worked through the WCI, to have brought back a substantive piece of legislation that we could have supported. But we can't support a blank cheque. That's unfortunate, because cap-and-trade is a critical area for us to go. But noting the hour, I'll take my place.

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

Bill 18, Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act, reported complete with amendments.

Bill 18, Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

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

M. Sather: I wanted to ask the minister first about an urgent situation in Maple Ridge regarding Golden Ears Care Society, who were the prior operators of what was then called the Golden Ears Retirement Centre, now under Retirement Concepts.

The society, which operates the Ridge Meadows Seniors Centre, a thriving centre for seniors in Maple Ridge, is being threatened with a $1.3 million lawsuit from the health benefit trust of the Health Employers Association of B.C. regarding an unfunded liability for long-term disability payments. This is an extremely serious situation, as $700,000 earmarked for seniors in Maple Ridge will be lost if this should go through, to the detriment of seniors in Maple Ridge.

I know that the minister has met with the seniors' Mr. Lind concerning this. If he could please give me an update and what the minister is going to do to assist our seniors in Maple Ridge in this regard.

Hon. G. Abbott: I am very familiar with this issue. The member for Maple Ridge–Mission has been canvassing me and the ministry in respect of this situation. He has asked us to look into it, and we are looking into it.

M. Sather: Well, the situation is desperate. The court is set to commence tomorrow, as I understand, so the time is very, very short for looking into it. Can the minister elaborate on just what sort of looking into it the government is doing?

Hon. G. Abbott: This issue involves the health benefit trust. It is a complex issue. I know there have been numerous discussions between the parties in respect of this. The member for Maple Ridge–Mission asked me to look into it, and we have staff who are looking into it. We know about the situation, and we're attempting to see what can be done.

M. Sather: I hope that whatever it is that the minister is doing will be successful, because this is a very urgent matter. This came about, as I said, in conjunction with Retirement Concepts taking over that facility. According to Mr. Lind, what I read is that the member for Maple Ridge–Mission said that this is an unfortunate, unintended consequence of the contracting-out that the government has done.

I would like to know whether the minister agrees with that statement — that this is in fact an unintended consequence of the contracting-out of this facility.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, the issue is a complex one, and it would not be appropriate to attach the characterization to it which the member has attempted.

M. Sather: Given that the situation apparently is a complex one, which I expect it is, would the minister say, then, that there is one component of this that has to do with the contracting-out of this facility?

Hon. G. Abbott: Just to suggest to the member, the staff member who has been working on this is not with us at this time, but we're going to request that she come and join us. If the member can hold off on those questions for a little bit, then we can perhaps get some better answers for him.

M. Sather: I'd appreciate that from the minister. I hope to be able to get some of those answers from the minister.

Last week in estimates I asked the minister about the facility and the audit that was going on there with regard to the care that seniors are receiving, and there had been a recent visit. The minister said they weren't yet aware of the results of that inspection. I'm wondering if today he can give me a further update on that visit.

Hon. G. Abbott: The most recent advice we have in respect of this is that the inspection is still ongoing.

M. Sather: When my staff last week inquired of Retirement Concepts and of the licensing branch of the Fraser Health Authority about the results, she was told that we — we being my office — are not privileged to that information. Is this information on inspections not public information, then?

Hon. G. Abbott: We share information in compliance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. As you probably know from our previous canvassing of this issue during estimates, the Ministry of Health, in response to a request from me as minister, is working on a new way of disseminating and posting information. That having been said, that model will have to operate within compliance of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as well.

M. Sather: Why does an MLA's office — to wit, the public — have to go to freedom of information to get

information on the quality of care that's being provided to a seniors centre? This is very much in the public interest. Why can the government not provide this information upfront?

Hon. G. Abbott: Just so I understand what the member is saying. I understood the member's previous question to be related to an inspection report which his staff sought from the Fraser Health Authority. In this question the member appears to be asking about why we have to go to FOI to get information on the quality of patient care. That is a different question, with respect. I'd like clarity from the member about what exactly he is asking.

M. Sather: Well, the inspection is about the quality of care in the facility. What I'm trying to find out is: why can we not get this information on the quality of care — to wit, the inspections — from the minister, from the government?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, we had a longer discussion about these matters in previous estimates sessions, so I don't propose to redo all of the long explanations with respect to how the licensing inspectors work at the health authorities, and that sort of thing. We canvassed that very fully previously in these estimates.

I would say to the member's question that MLA offices have to comply with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act just the same as Fraser Health does, the Ministry of Health does and every citizen of British Columbia does. I don't know why he would find it shocking that his MLA office has to respect the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act just the same as everyone else in the province does.

The reason why we have to respect that act is that these issues, as they are being adjudicated, will involve the gathering of personal and confidential information, and the dissemination of that information has to be done within the bounds of the act. That is the answer to the member's question.

M. Sather: Well, as the minister knows, these reports do come out eventually. They do give information about the quality of care. That's what we're asking for.

Staffing levels have been dropping at the Golden Ears Seniors Village, from 2.02 hours per resident-day in 2005 to 1.91 hours per resident-day in 2006.

The facility apparently did not report in 2007. Can the minister confirm whether or not they did report; if they did, what was the number; and if they didn't, why not?

Hon. G. Abbott: We don't know what the member is quoting from. Assuming that it's accurate, first of all, it's important to note that hours of care are something that is determined by contract. So if the Fraser Health Authority has a contract with Golden Ears for a certain number of care hours, which is presumably appropriate to the acuity mix that is in the facility, then it would be a matter between Fraser Health and Golden Ears to resolve whether Golden Ears was meeting the terms of their contract.

If there had been a reduction in care hours and that was not authorized by the contract, then there would be penalty and other provisions within the contract that would deal with that matter.

Further, it should be noted that the licensing officers…. One of the things that they always look at in their inspections is assurance that the contractors are living up to the terms of their licensing — that is, that they have sufficient staff in place for the facility.

Maybe the member can tell us what his source is, and we'd welcome that. The staffing levels in any given facility will vary with the acuity mix in that facility. If these are the highest level of patients in a residential care facility, then the staff mix, again, will vary with that. As acuity levels come down, the staffing mix changes as well.

M. Sather: I've been told by family members of patients at Golden Ears Seniors Village that Retirement Concepts trains their own care aides. They provide them with a loan of $6,000 to take the training and then deduct that loan from their wages. Can the minister confirm if this practice is taking place there?

Hon. G. Abbott: We're not privy to those arrangements. If the member or constituents of the member or anyone else have an allegation to make, they can furnish it to me, or they can furnish it to Fraser Health, and we'll look into it. It is impossible to respond to a suggestion like that without having all of the information, and all of the information fairly gathered from the parties.

To the member's earlier question, which had also been raised earlier with me by the member for Maple Ridge–Mission…. I can note, in respect of the Golden Ears Care Society in outstanding liabilities, that at the time of the sale the society had a number of LTD claimants, approximately six, and the unfunded actuarial liability for these claims was approximately $1.3 million.

Under the terms of the trust agreement, when a participating employer terminates membership, any unfunded liability attributable to the employees of that employer become due and owing to the health benefits trust. That is the situation that the society is in as a result of its termination of participation in HBT.

The theory underlying this approach is that while an employer continues as a member in HBT, any unfunded liability can be recovered through adjusted contribution rates. When an employer terminates membership, however, that ability ceases, so the liability becomes owing at that time. Where an employer defaults on its obligations, that employer's liability is unfairly borne by other members of the trust.

Again, this relates to six LTD claimants from the facility and the need to ensure that there's sufficient support for them.

M. Sather: The minister knows that I brought concerns about the rethermalized food a couple of years

ago in Ridge Meadows Hospital, and I understand that there was an audit of the nutritional quality of food in our hospitals, a request for proposals, last fall. Can the minister give me an update — if that RFP has been completed, when the results will come in, and if they'll be available to the public when they do come in?

Hon. G. Abbott: I should advise the member that we discussed this, canvassed this, thoroughly last week.

Just one last question to the minister. Retirement Concepts is building a new facility in Maple Ridge and will close the current facility. What will be the cost to patients for care in the new facility, and how does it compare to the costs in the current facility?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member used the term "costs." I presume he meant the rates that would be ascribed to the patients or residents there. Those should not change. The rates should not change.

M. Sather: I just wanted to touch quickly on the lack of detox services in Maple Ridge. We used to have detox services in New Westminster that we could access somewhat easily, then it moved to Burnaby, and now it's in Surrey. It makes it really difficult to deal with the addictions issues we have.

Can the minister give us any hope that detox services in the near future will be provided closer to home for the residents of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows — and the Tri-Cities, for that matter?

Hon. G. Abbott: We don't have detail with respect to what specifically Fraser Health may have in mind for the Tri-Cities. We'd be happy to get that information for the member by letter, but we don't have that information immediately with us.

It is the health authority which determines the location and size and so on of addiction and other facilities within the communities that the health authority serves. We do know that the Fraser Health Authority has been working very well with the Ministry of Health and with the Provincial Health Services Authority on this area, and we'll look forward to providing the member what information we can about the area he has referenced.

C. Trevena: I wanted to ask the minister. When the Comox-Strathcona regional district was broken up earlier this year, the regional hospital board was going to be carrying on. They've just worked out their letters patent but still are waiting for the Minister of Health to sign the letters patent so that they can continue working. It will still be one hospital board across the district. I wondered if the minister could give us an indication of when they would be signed, and then the board can get on with its work.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for her question. The letters patent are going through routine processes. There have been no issues flagged in respect of the signing of those. I understand that they have only very recently been signed by the regional hospital district, and we don't anticipate that there will be any difficulty in signing off our end of it when they're ready.

C. Trevena: I wonder if the minister could give some indication of how long the legal process takes, just so the hospital chairs know this.

Hon. G. Abbott: We expect, again, in the routine processing of these things, probably a couple or perhaps a few weeks. It won't be long, because there have been no issues identified.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister. I wanted to pick up on one issue that actually was raised in question period today, and that's the issue of mammograms. It goes back to something that the minister and I were discussing when I was in the Health estimates earlier on this session: the lack of doctors.

I wanted to ask the minister…. I mean, the mammogram screening process is terrific for all women who are over 40 and need to have the mammogram screening, and I think that we should be encouraging more and more women to do so. But what I'm hearing very clearly from women in my constituency is a twofold problem. One is that if they don't have a doctor who can refer them for their first screening, the B.C. Cancer Agency is very reluctant to have the screening or will say no. Secondly, if they can get the screening for some reason without having a family doctor, the Cancer Agency then has nobody to refer the results to.

I wondered if the minister could find ways of working with the Cancer Agency, while we have a doctor shortage, to ensure that women can still get the screening and aren't facing the barriers that this shortage is creating.

Hon. G. Abbott: There may be some issues that the member is trying to canvass here that we're not picking up initially. Women can self-refer for a mammogram. You don't necessarily have to have a sign-off or direction from a physician in order to do that. You could, for example, call up today, dial 1-888-GOHAVE1, and they will arrange for you or your constituent to have a screening mammogram at your earliest convenience — that is, your constituent's earliest convenience.

Just for the record, the wait period for a screening mammogram for some places on the north end of the Island: Nanaimo, 3.5 weeks; Port Alberni, no weeks at all, no wait at all, zero weeks. It's not at the north end of the Island, but Victoria, Richmond Avenue location, 3.5 weeks. So those are the fixed locations. I'm not sure whether the mobile van sometimes will go up there. I don't know about that, but maybe.

Pardon me. Comox is 1.5 weeks, and Campbell River is 11.5 weeks. So those are the ranges.

Again, as we discussed this issue today in the excellent way we always do in question period, there is a distinction between a mammogram for diagnostic purposes, which will be done if not that day then probably very quickly after; versus screening, which is something that can be done at any point, hopefully, at the convenience of the individual. But there's not a prescribed appropriate wait time for screening mammograms. Diagnostics, as I say, get done almost right away.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister. I wasn't actually going to be asking about wait-lists, and I'm very glad that he did bring up the point that there isn't an average, that in some places you are having to wait a lot longer than in other places.

Going back to my question, if a woman does self-refer and the Cancer Agency says, "There's no problem; come along; have your mammogram on this date," whether it's two weeks away or ten weeks away, depending on where you're living…. But if they don't have a family doctor to whom the results can be sent, what does the Cancer Agency do at that stage? What I'm hearing is that they're very reluctant to do screening for women who don't have a family doctor, because there is nowhere that they can send the results.

Hon. G. Abbott: The issue the member is raising around the orphaned patient who doesn't have a family physician to refer these things…. It is an important issue, and it is an issue that is under discussion at the ministry and Provincial Health Services Authority level. That having been said, if an individual has a positive rating in their mammogram screening, the individual who is reading that and detecting that has a responsibility to advise the individual who had the screening.

C. Trevena: I'm very pleased to hear that it is an issue that's being taken up. I think there is a concern there that the person who does the screening, the radiologist…. Let's say it's somebody from Campbell River. They get on the list. Two months later they get the screening. A radiologist does the screening. Would it be up to that individual radiologist to say…?

A woman who has a mammogram gets the results from the B.C. Cancer Agency as well. But if you find something, it's not the radiologist, I would say, who would really want to be the one who has to then call up the woman. And if the woman herself gets her letter from the B.C. Cancer Agency, it would be quite concerning. So it's that follow-up that I'm just concerned about.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member is describing the less-than-optimal situation where an individual doesn't have access to a family physician, and those situations do exist. That is why as a government we have made the enormous investment that we have to double the number of physicians that we are educating at the University of British Columbia, the University of Victoria and the University of Northern B.C. That's why last fall we doubled the intake class at UBC from 128 to 256. Because of not enough being trained in the past and the demographics of the physician community, this is a big problem.

That's also why we expend tens of millions of dollars annually recruiting nationally and internationally for physicians. It's so that we can have them, because there is no end to problems that are occasioned when people don't have access to physicians. That's why we take the public policy steps that we do around recruitment, retention and education. So that's just so we're clear on that point.

Secondly, when a mammogram screening is undertaken and there is a positive result, it is the responsibility of the B.C. Cancer Agency to contact the individual to let them know. Again, optimally, they would be contacting the family physician. But we're in the less-than-optimal position — hypothetically, at least — of the orphaned patient. In that case, it may be the radiologist, or it may be someone else who does it on behalf of B.C. Cancer Agency, but they try to ensure….

I must say that this is an interesting sort of situation the member raises. But we have a terrific cancer organization in the B.C. Cancer Agency and in the Provincial Health Services Authority, which is the umbrella over B.C. Cancer.

The B.C. Cancer Agency is an amazing organization. They provide a continuum of services from prevention to diagnostics to treatment to research. All of that is amazing and leading edge in our world. That's why places like China, Malaysia and Ireland…. People come from all over the world to look at our organization.

We don't see a lot of instances of patients getting lost in the B.C. Cancer system. Like everything else, we always strive for continuous improvement, but it is a very good model and even does the best it can in the absence of a family physician.

B. Ralston: On Tuesday, May 20 in these estimates we spoke briefly about the $13 million of non-bank-asset-backed commercial paper held by the Fraser Health Authority, and I asked about whether there was a write-down or had been a write-down. What the minister said, if I can summarize, was that he was advised that there was a 10 percent write-down for what he called prudent bookkeeping purposes, but the agency or the authority still expected a full recovery on maturity.

I asked similar questions of the Minister of Advanced Education, because the University of British Columbia also held a number of those financial instruments of substantially greater value, initially reported to be $122.5 million and now reported to be $130.6 million. From the Minister of Advanced Education I got very much the same answer — a 10 percent write-down and the expectation of full recovery.

However, since then — on the UBC website on May 23, just days ago — the university financial department has undertaken a closer review and are now saying, much as I suggested to them, that a more dramatic write-down was in order. This write-down has now

been increased from an initial write-down of $18 million to a $37.9 million reduction, which is a write-down of about 29 percent, by my calculation.

My concern is this, frankly. Is the minister getting an accurate evaluation of the financial status of these instruments from Fraser Health Authority? I would suggest not, and that is disturbing. So the 10 percent write-down, I suggest, is grossly unrealistic and misleading to put forward. That's not the minister's fault. That was the kind of information he was getting. Even UBC does not expect a full recovery by holding these instruments, as they'll be converted to long-term bonds with a five-to-seven-year maturity. There will still be a loss. So to say that there will be a full recovery after five to seven years is, I would suggest, equally inaccurate.

In the world of health spending these may seem like small amounts of money, but for most ordinary people in British Columbia these are substantial amounts of money, and it's public money that deserves to be accounted for properly. I would ask the minister — he may not be able to provide the answer today — to speak with the Fraser Health Authority and get the straight goods.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm glad the member asked that question because, in fact, I have a comprehensive answer for him today. We have some further information subsequent to the member raising this issue, I think, last week in estimates. We've got an updated note from Fraser Health on that.

Fraser Health has $13 million invested in asset-backed commercial paper, or ABCPs, as they'll be referred to subsequently. Our latest information is that FHA will book a 20 percent — that is $2.6 million — impairment on their March 31, 2008, financial statements based on discussions with their auditors. This is a prudent course of action in line with what's being done by other investors.

ABCPs represent a $35 billion issue for Canada's financial community. Last fall all key stakeholders and investors agreed that an orderly way of restructuring the investment should be developed. Purdy Crawford was commissioned to put together a restructuring plan, which was brought forward in March 2008. The plan has the support of most investors. However, it requires court approval, and there are still a number of obstacles to overcome.

Under the proposed plan, FHA will be reissued replacement double-A-rated notes that will mature in 2016. These notes will bear interest. Approximately 3 percent — that is, 388,000 — of the FHA notes have not been rated and have a greater risk profile.

Assuming FHA holds the securities to maturity, the authority believes it will recover its original principle together with interest. There's obviously risk, and that, in the opinion of their auditors, has been prudently provided for on its income statement.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that. Perhaps the minister could just advise why the 20 percent was chosen. UBC, another public institution miles away, has reviewed its portfolio and chosen a 29 percent write-down. They referred the…. They possess substantial in-house capability for financial analysis, although they were assisted by detailed analysis by two third-party experts.

Again, the difference of a 10 percent on this amount is $1.3 million. So I appreciate that it's impairment only and a charge on the books, which they would hope to recover at maturity. Nonetheless, it is a substantial difference.

Hon. G. Abbott: We don't know enough about UBC's situation to be able to comment knowledgeably on that nor to compare. What one would assume is that the situation with respect to ABCPs is probably different in respect of UBC than it is to Fraser Health. In both cases, the university and the authority have secured, I think, the best advice they can from their auditors and advisers and presumably have undertaken the courses that have been prescribed or advised to them.

C. Wyse: I do have some questions, Minister, regarding the ambulance system, when you're ready.

C. Wyse: Thank you, Minister. I'm going to start off with some questions about the rural-remote-designated classifications, and I'm going to give an example or two from around the province to show that it's not necessarily that the concerns are restricted simply to the Cariboo and Cariboo South.

I have recent correspondence that I've received from the Queen Charlottes, the north coast area, in which the individual is very specific on the costs that have been encountered to obtain the training to become a paramedic. In round figures it's $2,200 — not counting lost wages, travel and accommodation or food.

Likewise, from the north coast area I again have from this year a description of a situation. One of these paramedics was called out and did the call as a paramedic, and because the actual call went from 7 p.m. until 3 a.m. the next day, that individual was not able to go to their regular employment. Fortunately, the individual employer excused the individual for not being able to attend work, but the individual lost that day's pay, because they were not able to turn up for their regular job. I'm told that that individual lost the $250 from the regular job. That sets, from another part of the province, the situation that often faces our paramedics here in the rural- or remote-designated stations in the province.

In going to Cariboo South, in Clinton, which is a remote-designated station…. In the month of May for half the days this remote-designated station has been out of service for a portion of those shifts, and for nine of those days there was no coverage at all.

I quote from the mayor of Clinton, Mayor Stanke: "People are turning down jobs in Clinton because the

$2-an-hour pager pay in rural communities is simply not going to attract people that we need." Then he goes on to state: "In talking with local residents, all I'm hearing is how they're losing faith in the province's ability to deliver ambulance services and whether they expect them to take their loved ones to hospitals themselves rather than face wait times that can be over an hour."

With those examples…. I do know that, again, the B.C. Ambulance Service recently produced a recruitment pamphlet. The pamphlet clearly states that the staffing situation at the Clinton station is a crisis. The pamphlet was written to invite people to help their community by becoming paramedics. As of July 1 there may only be two paramedics left in Clinton, reducing service delivery by almost 80 percent.

"No concrete steps have been taken to address fundamental issues such as benefits, training and allowances to improve the staffing levels in rural and remote stations. Currently, new employees must work for the B.C. Ambulance Service for six years before they qualify for benefits." So part of the issue, of course, is the pay portion for retaining people, and the other part is the training cost.

The B.C. Ambulance Service is now just beginning to offer paid basic-level training for new hires. That is an improvement.

My question is: what is the minister doing today to further resolve the fundamental obstacles of training and retention that prevent appropriate staffing in the rural and remote ambulance stations in British Columbia?

Hon. G. Abbott: We are being joined by B.C. Ambulance officials who can begin…. The member has actually combined quite a lot of questions into his original submission here, so we'll work on that. While we have a moment to prepare a response to the member, we'll bring the committee up to date on questions that were asked but we didn't have the answers available at the time.

There was a question raised about the Fraser Health Authority ratio of acute care beds 2002 to 2008. That ratio for the last year we have is 1.4 acute care beds per 1,000 population. That compares to 1.5 per 1,000 for 2001-2002. We know that there has been an increase over time of about 7 percent in the number of acute care beds in Fraser Health. We recently have added 60-plus, I believe, at Fraser Health Authority, and there will be an additional, I believe, 70 coming on stream at the new Abbotsford regional hospital and cancer centre. So that 1.4 may change, but that is the most recent figure we have.

Further, it should be noted that we have seen over recent decades a reversal in the in-patient to out-patient ratios at acute care hospitals. We expect that at the Abbotsford regional hospital, as an example — which is the absolute leading edge in terms of its personnel and equipment and so on — about 80 percent of the procedures that will be done at Abbotsford will be done on an out-patient basis versus 20 percent on an in-patient basis.

We wouldn't have to go back that far in time to a period when virtually every procedure involved an in-patient stay of some length. A good example would be around cataracts, which used to involve a few days' stay in hospital and today are done in just a couple of hours as an out-patient service. There are many examples of that.

The other item which should be considered in this matter is the number of residential care and assisted-living units that have been added in Fraser Health, which now is close to 1,000.

Also, another issue raised, again, by the member for Vancouver-Kingsway on some other implementations was: has Fraser Health implemented a regional trauma program? Yes, they have submitted a regional trauma plan to the ministry. Royal Columbian is the designated tertiary trauma centre for FHA. Accreditation is good for five years. Plans for reaccreditation are underway. FHA's regional trauma program, led by Royal Columbian Hospital, is planning for the FHA network, including the new Abbotsford regional hospital and cancer centre and its role in treating trauma.

There was a question regarding the expansion of the thoracic program at Surrey Memorial. I understand that current FHA deliverables for the thoracic program are being met and plans have been made to recruit a third surgeon for 2010-2011.

A question was asked on the issue of repatriation of pediatric surgery from B.C. Children's Hospital. PHSA and FHA are engaged in comprehensive strategic planning for pediatric services, including surgical services for children living in FHA.

A question was asked with respect to the repatriation of low-risk deliveries from B.C. Women's Hospital. I can advise that PHSA and FHA completed a preregistration strategy to limit registration of women from FHA regions with normal pregnancies and expecting normal deliveries. In 2007-08 it's believed that this has resulted in approximately 500 fewer births at B.C. Women's Hospital.

Finally, in regards to the expansion of ICU beds at Royal Columbian Hospital, I'm pleased to announce that two additional beds were opened in March, increasing the number of ICU beds at Royal Columbian from 14 to 16.

Also, I should note this. At our last estimates sitting the member for Delta North asked what was included or not included in our 5,000-bed calculation. A portion of my answer was inaccurate — specifically, around the inclusion of supportive seniors housing with home care appended.

I would like to take a few moments to review what is included and what is not and why that is that way. What we attempt to do with our programs in seniors care or frail elderly care is to provide a continuum of care or a range of care which extends from home care or home support, where the frail senior actually gets the support in their own home. That home care or home support is not included in our 5,000-unit calculation. We also have, within the continuum of care, seniors housing. Again, that is not in the calculation of the 5,000 units.

At a little higher level than seniors housing is converted seniors housing which has been prepared for home care. We do include those converted seniors units in our calculation, and I'll go into the reasons for that in a moment.

The next step up is assisted living, and that is included in our 5,000-unit calculation. And of course, at the highest level of acuity is residential care where people have 24-7 complex care. That is included as well.

What we aim for in British Columbia, where possible, is to build what we call a campus-of-care model where people are able to age in place. There are lots of atypical situations, but a typical situation is someone perhaps in their 70s or 80s who requires only minimal supports. As they get into the latter part of their 80s or 90s, they start to require higher levels of home care. As we age, the level of care required increases, and therefore, we try to build that network of supports.

One of the advantages of having that continuum is that the frail elderly are able to maintain their social relationships in the facility. If they begin in seniors housing and they start to require home care, intermittently or regularly, they can move into a unit that has the ability for the senior to be maintained in that unit with home care. So they're able to maintain their social relationships by staying in the same campus of care.

Assisted living involves — we talked about this last week, but just to reconfirm — a private room with its own washroom facilities. Each assisted-living unit will have its own emergency call system. Each assisted-living unit will have the components integrated that allow for home care, things like levered handles throughout on all of the doors and cupboards and so on. There will be grab bars in washrooms and walk-in showers. There are a range of improvements that are involved in that, or they're not involved in improvements in AL. The rooms are purpose-built with those features within them.

In assisted living we also have shared social and recreational amenities, and we also have a hospitality package. This typically would involve two meals, usually lunch and dinner, and weekly linen and housekeeping services.

This point is important. In supportive seniors housing — that is, supportive seniors housing that has been converted from seniors housing to be home care–ready — many of the features are exactly the same as in assisted living. They have a private room with its own washroom facilities. Each unit in supportive seniors home care–ready will have its own emergency call system. It will have all the home care–ready components: levered handles, grab bars, walk-in showers and so on.

There will, again, be shared social and recreational amenities and a hospitality package. In some cases it's only one meal, versus two, but there is also weekly linen and housekeeping available in those converted units.

The only difference, and it's not a big difference, between converted supportive seniors housing that is home care–ready and assisted living is that in the case of supportive seniors, it is a conversion that comes at a cost of about $40,000 to $50,000 a unit on already-existing seniors housing. In the case of assisted living, it is purpose-built with those features incorporated at time of construction.

I'll just close on this. A good example of a campus of care, for members' reference — they may want to go visit it — is the Evergreen Baptist facility at White Rock. There are 156 existing residential care units. There are 84 assisted-living units, which were completed in 2006. The Evergreen Baptists are in the process of converting 110 units to supportive seniors housing ready for home care. Those are expected to be completed in June of 2008.

Those are the ones that we can note now, and I'll just take a moment and check with our staff on the answers to your questions.

C. Wyse: It's been such a long time since I gave you my question, Minister. I was wondering whether you still remembered the concerns that I had raised.

C. Wyse: Okay. I wanted to make sure that you hadn't forgotten the geography I had covered.

Hon. G. Abbott: To begin, I'll just note that I'm reading here a media release from the hon. member for Cariboo South, who released this press release on May 23, 2008. It reads: "Among other things, the ambulance stations in both Clinton and Alexis Creek were out of service over the May long weekend."

It also claimed that the average response time for trauma incidents is four hours. It claimed that there will be thousands of people in Clinton this coming weekend with no ambulance coverage for all three straight days, etc. — none of which is accurate.

This is the most recent advice from B.C. Ambulance Service. For the weekend of May 23, 24, 25 the Clinton ambulance was staffed. Clinton is designated a remote station. It received 138 calls in 2006-2007. Of those calls, 73 were classified as requiring an emergency lights and sirens response.

We do recognize that smaller communities like Clinton, Anahim Lake, Nakusp and Alexis Creek do require recruiting initiatives and innovations. I certainly agree with the member on that point. There has been a recent recruitment campaign in Clinton.

I should give some credit where credit is due. The village — I believe it's a village — of Nakusp really worked very hard with the B.C. Ambulance Service to build a model whereby we could build a stronger paramedic base in that small community. It was successful, and that model has been utilized elsewhere in British Columbia with some success — for example, at Anahim Lake.

Anahim Lake was a station that had chronic difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff members, but we've enjoyed some considerable success. I believe there are some other examples as well. A recent

recruitment campaign by BCAS in Clinton resulted in 12 new applicants, and on Vancouver Island there was Zeballos, as well, which has been able to overcome some chronic recruitment problems. So in credit to BCAS, they have been working very hard on those issues.

I might also refer the member to an article on October 30, 2007, in the Williams Lake Tribune. This is an article not by a reporter; it's a submitted article entitled "Alexis Creek Paramedics Improved Response Time, Care and Prognosis for Rural Patients. " It is by Richard Vollo, who I think the member knows well. Richard Vollo is also a vice-president of the paramedics union. Among other things, the article notes that "although a work in progress, the B.C. Ambulance Service has taken significant steps to mitigate the shortage of paramedics in Alexis Creek and Anahim Lake."

I think we'd all acknowledge that that chronic shortage still exists in Alexis Creek, but Alexis Creek is a little smaller and a different makeup than Anahim Lake. We're going to continue to try to deal with those recruitment issues.

C. Wyse: My question was, as I recall: what is being done today to deal with recruitment and the retention issues that exist in the rural and remote issues across British Columbia? I'm going to ask the minister just in case I may have missed the answer. I got a bunch of data, but I don't think I got an answer to the question.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his patience and forbearance in ferreting out these answers.

The B.C. Ambulance Service does work, as I noted, with the communities. For example, we have seen the B.C. Ambulance Service sometimes on their own, sometimes in partnership with the community, sponsoring training for paramedics in a traditionally or historically underserviced community. Certainly, both Anahim Lake and Alexis Creek are excellent examples of those kinds of communities. That has been helpful — the sponsoring. In those kinds of communities, the service may carry the cost, sometimes in partnership with the community, of that training.

The next piece, I think, is really important, and we're going to continue to build on this. The emergency medical training is actually now being done right in the community. Rather than having everybody come down to the Justice Institute for the training, which is very expensive from a rural area, we are now doing some training for EMR right in the communities themselves. I think that's a great step ahead. Now we're able to complete licensing processes in the community as well. So that's helpful as well.

Just a few examples, perhaps in addition to or more completely than what I provided previously. In the Robson Valley in 2007, BCAS began the Robson Valley recruitment project and hired six new paramedics in Valemount and one in McBride.

In the Queen Charlottes in February 2007, BCAS entered into partnership with the Gwaii Trust Society on Queen Charlotte Islands, or Haida Gwaii, as it's sometimes known, and hired ten new paramedics. Haida Gwaii is an area that has been problematic, as well, in the past. In Nakusp a partnership between the village, the Columbia Basin Trust and the Arrow Lakes Hospital foundation has resulted in EMR training for nine new and current staff.

In Blue River, again, a local partnership has resulted in four new paramedics and, at Zeballos, in seven new successful hires. BCAS recently sponsored an EMR course in Golden, with 12 participants from Golden and Field, and seven of the participants are new applicants to the BCAS. In Princeton and Keremeos eight paramedics will be trained to PCP — primary care paramedic — level, thanks to a community partnership. Clinton, as I noted, has 12 new applicants to BCAS as a result of the recent campaign.

So I think, again, that that is very, very useful. Has the issue disappeared entirely? No, it hasn't. We need to keep building the model and working the model in those communities where we're still having some challenges around sufficient recruitment.

C. Wyse: Talking about training will always beg retention, and there are issues around retention, as the mayor of Clinton referred to. The issue is complex, and in the original information I shared with the minister there are the issues about when benefits kick in, if and when they do, as well as the call-out time versus being able to make a living. I used the example from the Charlottes, in which the day's pay was lost. Those are standard, and I know that the minister understands those parts.

Once more, Minister: last year during estimates when I attempted to find out, actually, the times for being out of service completely as well as for first responders for the rural, remote areas, I was advised that that information wasn't available in a readily provided form for me. Therefore, I still don't have any overview of what the actual up-time is for all of these stations — never mind what's going on with the training.

Having established that aspect of it, I'd like to return to Cariboo South specifically and deal with another component that the minister included in his response. The remote stations are not serving the communities they're stationed in only. They're serving a very large geographical area. What we're looking for is the standards established by B.C. Ambulance Service for the response time for those areas.

Now, the information that I have for Alexis Creek from February 1 through to May 14 is that the response time for trauma calls is three hours and 45 minutes. They had to be responded to from Kamloops because Alexis Creek has been completely out of service for 90 days. Alexis Creek is one of two ambulance stations that are along Highway 20, which serves, between Williams Lake and Bella Coola, a distance of over 400 kilometres. So from those stations, when the ambulance gets the call, the call-out time now becomes an hour, plus or minus, dealing with the geography where they're coming from.

No one is looking for an extension or lift to the service. What they're looking for is an establishment of the standards of service established by the B.C. Ambulance Service. As I did mention — and I'm stating it once more because of its significance — Alexis Creek is completely out of service and has been for 90 days, and there is no known time when it will open up.

When we return to Anahim Lake, which is the other station covering that road area and including all the geography, the staffing situation I have is that they now have two driver-only staff and one emergency medical responder who can actually provide medical care. There is no question that that is a drastic improvement of the level of available people for that particular station. There is no question about that. But ambulance stations, in case I'm the only one that understands it, require staffing 7-24, and you cannot staff a station with the type of numbers that are there on any type of a regular basis.

Accepting, which I do very much, the sincerity of the minister to try and address this complex issue and given that I've now clarified that the Alexis Creek and the Anahim Lake stations cover a very large geographical area that includes within it a large number of smaller communities, my question to the minister is: will he commit today to provide the resources to reopen the Alexis Creek station?

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the member's comments, and I appreciate the member's sincerity around these issues as well. I also want to say that I know the member was attempting to be constructive in trying to sort of frame up a series of questions in his initial round of questions. As a consequence, because we're trying to grab on to a whole bunch of stuff, sometimes you may have to be persistent and dig in here and ask some of these things again.

In terms of the retention issue…. This is an important issue, and no doubt, there will be much discussion of retention issues in future. One of the things we were able to do in the most recent collective agreement with the B.C. Ambulance Service and CUPE, which represents the paramedics, was for the first time to have an on-call rate for remote station paramedics. Previously it had been pretty much a volunteer arrangement for paramedics — zero dollars and zero cents per hour, as they sometimes express it.

What happens now is that in stations deemed remote…. The threshold for that, I believe, is less than a hundred call-outs or something a year, but we'll get the detail on that. In those remote stations there is a $2-an-hour rate for the paramedic to be carrying a pager in community. They don't have to be in the station. They can be working at the hardware store. They can be working at the mill. They can be doing other things in community, and they're getting that $2-an-hour rate.

When they respond to a call, they receive a minimum of four hours' pay at the hourly paramedic rate. That varies depending on the level of qualification, but that is what is available. Now, it is true that in rural-designated stations $10 an hour is the rate, but the paramedic needs to be in-station to secure that rate. They can't be working elsewhere in the community. They have to be available in-station to take the call. Because the rural stations are generally busier stations than the remote stations — in fact, that's why they have the designation — we need to have the paramedic in the station at $10 an hour — for that fee.

One of the retention challenges we have — and in some ways this is a positive thing…. What we will see with many paramedic recruits is that they'll work for a time in a rural or remote station as they gather expertise and experience. They will often be very interested in going on to a larger centre and securing permanent, full-time employment as a paramedic. That's a very good thing if you happen to be that larger community. If you happen to be the rural or remote station, it is a less positive thing, because people do move to larger centres to advance their careers. But that's something we need to keep our efforts going on.

I should also note that in addition to the initiatives around training that were noted in my previous answer, we also provide ongoing training and clinical education to paramedics now in community. That's bringing this training closer to home so that, indeed, we have the opportunity to ensure that we have our paramedics — whether they're in a remote station, a rural station or a full-time station — always trained to standard.

In terms of the time in and out, I'll consult with my staff and try to get you what information we have on that for Anahim Lake and for Alexis Creek.

C. Wyse: The minister can correct me if I'm wrong. I don't believe I did get an answer to a commitment that the resources will be provided to keep the Alexis station open immediately. If I missed that, I do intend to be reporting back to my community that I did not receive an answer to that question and that therefore, to the best of my knowledge, the resources are not going to be provided. I will leave that up to the minister to correct my misunderstanding, if indeed I do have it in error.

I would like to move on to the Kootenays. I have some questions to ask about the paramedic situation over in the Kootenays. How many full-time positions remain vacant at the Trail ambulance station?

Hon. G. Abbott: In terms of Anahim Lake, BCAS has made significant progress in improving the service levels at Anahim Lake. Recent recruiting activities resulted in a staffing complement of three EMR paramedics and two driver-only staff members.

Alexis Creek has previously experienced staffing difficulties, as the member well knows, and recently the primary paramedic has been on medical leave. During this recent event, Williams Lake and Anahim Lake have been fully staffed for the period.

BCAS has recently hired two new staff members. One staff member is currently completing the EMR training — this is at Alexis Creek and should be

completed by the end of May — while the other staff member is working as a driver-only staff member. This staff member is also trying to organize an EMR course to take. We are doing what we can to deal with the situation at Alexis Creek, but again, it is a challenging one, without question.

We understand the member asked, in his last question, about Trail. We are not aware of any staffing issues in Trail. We're trying to secure more information, and perhaps if the member has information he can share with us, we'd be glad to hear it. But we don't have with us any indication that there's a staffing issue at Trail.

C. Wyse: I've left the question with minister. If I'm understanding him correctly, he will have his staff confirm that, and he will get back to me with the answer to my question. That's quite satisfactory.

Likewise, the same for my next question. How many are vacant at the Nelson ambulance station? Again, if the same information is not available here, I would….

Hon. G. Abbott: We have no information that would suggest vacancy issues in Nelson either, but we're trying to see if there is any information that would cause us to change that assessment. If we get that information prior to the conclusion of estimates today, I'll put it on the record. But if we don't have the information by closing time, as we say, we will provide the information in a letter to the member.

C. Wyse: I thank the minister for that. One last question. It will be my last question.

I do want to acknowledge you and your staff, Minister, for your efforts on this.

My last question is: will the minister provide an update on when the Kamloops Dispatch Centre will be replaced with a new facility?

In terms of the Kamloops station, a series of very rigorous evaluations have been undertaken by external experts on these matters to try to provide B.C. Ambulance Service with the best advice about whether they ought to remediate or renovate the existing building or if they should undertake a new build. The advice of those evaluators, those external experts, was very definitively to proceed with a new build rather than attempt to retrofit those premises that were damaged in the past incident.

Planning is now underway around what a new premises would look like for BCAS dispatch in Kamloops. They're looking at issues like the size of the facility, the location of the facility, the configuration of services within the facility and, of course, the cost of the facility.

While that work is being done, the dispatch centre remains, as the member knows, in temporary quarters in Kamloops. Those temporary quarters have been evaluated. They are appropriate for the interim period. Of course, we will look forward at some future point to being more definitive around when a new centre can be put in place.

K. Conroy: The minister and I have talked about the critical care transport team based out of Trail in the West Kootenay regional hospital. We've talked about some of the issues with that team. I just want to hear from the minister, regardless of personnel issues with the team, if the ministry and the minister himself are still committed to the critical care team in the West Kootenays and the work that it does in the area.

Hon. G. Abbott: The critical care transport team began as a pilot initiated by the government to try to serve West Kootenay and the Boundary areas. It serves Nelson, Nakusp, Castlegar and some other areas, as well as Trail. The pilot was successful and has since been elevated to program status. It provides interfacility transfers, Airvac transfers — that sort of thing.

In response to the member's question, we believe that the team has worked well. We want the team to continue. I understand there have been some personnel issues — namely, some tensions within the personnel that staff the critical care transfer teams. We are attempting, both through BCAS and Interior Health, to try to address those tensions in the transfer team, because we believe it's a good model. We would like it to continue, but there are some issues which need to be resolved.

K. Conroy: Then I'd like to put on the record that…. If there were interpersonal issues in an emergency room or on one of the acute care floors or in the maternity ward, would it be appropriate for IHA to threaten to close the program? That's what's happening in our region right now. Because there are interpersonal issues — which the paramedics themselves are feeling are not there to the degree that IHA and the B.C. Ambulance Service are saying they are — there is a threat that the program will be closed.

I want to put it on the record that if it is a permanent program, then the administration of both IHA and the B.C. ambulance association should be responsible for ensuring that those issues are worked out, that the personnel are in place to make sure that the team operates, and that that team, which…. It is a project that originally came in as a project, but now it's a vital part of health care services in our region, and it can't be eliminated at the whim of the IHA and the B.C. Ambulance Service because of personnel issues.

Hon. G. Abbott: We do believe in this team. This is a team that is based on the concept of highly trained nurses and highly trained paramedics working together as a team. As the member put it, there have been some interpersonal and other issues that have grown within the team.

The member posed the question: well, if there were tensions in the emergency room, would we close it? No, we would certainly not do that. That having been

said, if there are elements of dysfunction within the service delivery in this model, we have to look at how we can improve and overcome the dysfunction. Yes, BCAS has a role. Yes, Interior Health has a role. But the public sector unions, in this case, also have a role in trying to ensure that in any dysfunction that is evident, they are part of the leadership in overcoming it.

I am advised that a facilitator will be working with the team and, I presume, working with the unions that are involved in the team as well. I think what we'd like to see — and I'm sure the member would be anxious to confirm this from her perspective as well — is that the team continues and that it continues to be structured in the same way as it is now, because it is this unique partnership involving nurses and paramedics. I'm sure she'd like to see that as well. Although, if she has a different view, I'd certainly welcome her to advise me of that as well.

We want to see all of the parties work together here to resolve these things and to see the critical care transport team continue to be a success, because it is an important enhancement of services in the Kootenays. We want to see it continue. We don't want to see the model breaking down over interpersonal and other issues that may arise.

G. Gentner: First of all, I'd like to thank the minister and, of course, staff again for their hard work and their dedication here. Surely, I do have to admit that I worry about workers compensation with the amount of binders that this staff has to employ. I've never seen so many binders in my life. Maybe we can ask Worksafe B.C. to make sure that estimates are extended to the full amount of time that's necessary so they don't have to carry such large binders. They could be broken down in more reasonable areas that can be shared without straining the back, etc.

With that, very quickly, some unfinished business that we talked about. I asked a question last Friday afternoon relative to the staffing levels amongst the health authorities, and the minister assured me…. He gave me lists of the work-hours per resident-day at IHA and the Northern Health Authority, but he couldn't provide information relative to, of course, the Fraser Health Authority. He said he would be honoured to get back to me as soon as possible, if not that very day, if that information was provided.

So I'm hopeful that, having had the weekend and of course all day yesterday and this afternoon, he would have that information available.

Hon. G. Abbott: In response to his question, I can advise the member, additionally, that direct care hours vary, based on the residents' needs, size of the facility and other factors. Direct care includes care provided by registered nurses, licensed practical nurses and care aides. In the Fraser Health Authority, the average worked hours of direct care per resident-day are 2.4 hours. The average paid hours of direct care per resident-day are 2.9 hours.

G. Gentner: Moving into a different area, I'd like to talk about…. We saw in the throne speech, and I know this ministry is involved in it, the view that government will be enacting soon, I suppose, the Medical Savings Account. Other places refer to it as health savings accounts. In the throne speech it was referred to as ILSA, independent living savings accounts.

I know the ministry is involved in this, because I'm sure it's a cooperative gathering of various ministries that put this new program together. From my understanding, the government is studying independent living savings accounts. Therefore, that studying would also imply that there's some money being spent. I'm asking the minister, basically: how will these MSAs contain the health care costs?

Hon. G. Abbott: What was referenced in the throne speech was an independent living savings account. I think the member used a different phrase — Medical Savings Account or something. I'm not aware of any work being done on something like that.

What we are looking at, in partnership with the Ministry of Finance, is the concept of a tax-sheltered savings plan for future care for individuals, where they can set aside tax-sheltered savings, maybe for assisted living or, potentially, residential care for the future. This is a tax policy issue. We are working on it, but we are not close yet to even having options to consider in this area. It's just some base or formative work that is being done around the concept of an independent living savings account.

Again, there are all kinds of different permutations that can occur in respect of these kinds of tax-sheltered savings plans, but we do have a couple of models in the province and the nation currently — things like registered retirement savings plans, where people can put tax-sheltered savings ahead for their retirement years. I think it's a very sensible thing. I presume that the opposition is supportive of RRSPs. Perhaps they can correct the record if I'm wrong, but I presume that everybody is supportive of RRSPs.

Or it may look like registered education savings plans — again, the opportunity for families to save for the education of their children in registered education savings plans. I'm sure many members of the Legislature have availed themselves of those RESP opportunities, Again, I'm presuming that all members of the House would be supportive of registered education savings plans.

The independent living savings plan will be something…. Depending on what the outcome of the work is, it would be something, again, I presume that all members of the Legislature would welcome. But I can't say that, because it is not to the point of being a bill that would capture the attention of the Legislature. I don't know that.

I'm always keen to know the opposition's views on these things. If they have a view on independent living

savings accounts or on registered retirement education plans or, you know, any of those programs, I'd be pleased to hear it.

G. Gentner: Well, it's an interesting concept, and it will be open for lots of debate. I guess we're just ferreting out what it all means. With respect, I understand that the ministry itself is trying to find out what it means, as well, in this moment of studying the independent living savings account framework.

How will these — I'll call it ILSA — ILSAs create an equal playing field or universality in caring for seniors and their health?

Hon. G. Abbott: Just while I'm thinking about it, the member for Cariboo South had asked a couple of questions in relation to Trail and Nelson, and we now have that information. I'll just put it on the record for the member and then get to the other question that's before us.

In Trail there are currently two vacancies at B.C. Ambulance Service. One is the unit chief position, which is currently posted. The other position is currently being assessed, but all shifts are being filled in Trail.

In Nelson there are currently three vacancies. One is the unit chief position, which is currently posted. The other two positions are being assessed by BCAS right now. In the meantime, shifts have all been filled — no difficulty in filling shifts to date. So hopefully that will be a useful answer to the member for Cariboo South.

In terms of the independent living savings account, again, we're talking concept here. But the concept is a framework which would allow citizens to choose to invest a certain portion of their income each year up to age 75 in a tax-sheltered savings account for home care support, assisted independent housing and supportive housing options.

Again, I think the member asked a question along the lines of how this would ensure a level playing field in relation to the provision of this care. I don't think the attempt here is to somehow remedy or replace all of the issues and programs and facilities that we have in British Columbia with an ILSA program.

The ILSA program, I'm sure, will be an attempt to further enhance the opportunity of seniors to access programs that are either covered by the Canada Health Act or not covered by the Canada Health Act, to try to build their opportunities to have the very best of care in their latter years. So it is, I think, a wise proposition whereby, just as we save to try to deal with our retirement years or just as we save to try to ensure that we are able to access educational opportunities for our children, this would be a tax-sheltered opportunity to save for the future for our care needs in our advanced years.

To me, there's nothing magical about this. It's a wise public policy initiative to try to conclude.

G. Gentner: The government is going to move towards this sooner or later, I suppose. Has the ministry proven that ILSA will deter rising health care costs?

Hon. G. Abbott: We're not sure what the member means by the question exactly. We don't know how this would have anything to do with deterring health care costs. Those costs exist with or without an ILSA program.

Further, while the member might conclude that we're definitely going to do this, we have not concluded that. There's an enormous amount of policy and other work that needs to be done before we can conclude that this can proceed.

I think it's also fair to say that we would want to proceed, if we could, in partnership with the federal government on this, but again, this is not a program that's going to magically make all of the health care cost pressures disappear. It's simply not the case.

G. Gentner: Well, it was in the throne speech. You know, there is a year. We have until, I guess, next March, where you'd think, perhaps, that this program would be meted out.

A question I have, though, is: has the ministry, the government, done any study as to how many people will be able to afford to pay into ILSA?

Hon. G. Abbott: No. We are early in the policy development and assessment stage. Again, the member said something about March 2009. We will still be undertaking the policy work at that point in time. This program will not be in place in March of 2009. Issues like who will be able to pay and who won't be able to, again, will be part of that assessment work that we do in the months and, potentially, years ahead.

G. Gentner: I'll leave that line of questioning. I have another 20 questions related to it, but I'm gaining some assurances from the minister that we're not going to see any legislation relative to this up until, hopefully, May 12. If it becomes one of those issues that will be debated at the stump, so be it. It should be an interesting discussion.

Maybe the government will provide us with more information relative to what ILSA really means. We do have some concerns. I'm sure the minister will appreciate it. I'll admit that we ourselves haven't come to a point where we fully have a position on it. Until the information is provided, we're going to continue to ask the questions, which is what we do best as opposition.

I do want to ask a question on something called mentorship — inSite Housing, Hospitality and Health Services, Inc. Hopefully, we can deal with this quickly. I'm really intrigued with it, because I know it deals with, basically, Interior Health Authority. My question is: how much has the IHA spent on a middle agency — I'll call it — for mentorships?

Hon. G. Abbott: We're surmising here, but we would surmise that the mentoring is likely staff development contracts that would exist between the Interior Health Authority and an agency, presumably, which is contracted to assist them in staff development. That

would obviously be an area of responsibility for the health authority. We don't have details on that.

If the member has a particular interest, I'm certain we can get the Interior Health Authority to provide to him what information he's looking for if he wants to sort of lay out what it is he's looking for.

G. Gentner: No, I'm just trying to get on the record what it means. My understanding is that it was set up to help mentor non-profits and their organizational structure regarding long-term care homes. I'm not suggesting it's a failure. But I mean, it seems to me that that's its purpose.

There seems to be more of an increase in the amount of private care homes as opposed to the not-for-profit projects. I'm just wondering if this is a trend that's going to continue in government — this third-party mentorship program. Maybe the minister can just, basically, quickly respond to it, and I can move on to another question.

Hon. G. Abbott: A little advice around this. The mentorship program is for small non-profit organizations who have an interest in providing assisted-living projects in their community.

This is not an unusual kind of situation when you get to smaller communities, like Sicamous or Enderby, where the non-profits are very active. They do great work, but they don't necessarily, because of their relatively small size…. They don't always have the business and construction expertise that one needs to carry off even a ten- or 12- or 15-unit assisted-living project.

The aim of the contractor is to provide that expertise to the non-profit. I'm presuming that would be an outcome that, again, all members of the House would welcome.

So inSite Housing is also dealing with partnering and with private developers relative to the delivery of senior units. I'm just wondering…. I'm not going to ask the question, because I'm going to move on, but it is a concern how that is being interplayed or interconnected with the private sector here. I'm not sure if the minister was aware with that, but I will bring it up, perhaps in a letter to the minister.

Very briefly, I only have a few questions. I have 64 questions here relative to Retirement Concepts, and I'm not going to have the time to deliver them. So maybe tomorrow, if there's some call for written questions for question period, maybe that's the time I'll post them.

I've canvassed it very quickly before, and I'll try again. We saw what happened at Beacon Hill. On February 29, 2008, VIHA announced the administrator position would be extended to August 3, for a total of ten months, even though before, it was suggested it only go for a couple of months. Can the minister explain why this is happening and why it's taking so long to clear up this problem at Beacon Hill? And what are the costs, if any, to the ministry?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question. It is an important one. The appointment of an administrator to replace the facility administrator is one of the most serious steps that can be undertaken by a health authority in terms of an infraction that has occurred and concerns that arise from that infraction or infractions.

I understand that in the case of Beacon Hill Villa, the appointment of the administrator by the Vancouver Island Health Authority was for a minimum period of six months. Again, underlining the seriousness of the step that was taken here, though, VIHA has taken the position that they want to see three months of fully compliant service prior to the interim VIHA administrator again turning the operation over to the hired administrator of Retirement Concepts.

G. Gentner: Well, noting the seriousness, as the minister has suggested, the lack of being fully compliant to the regs and the administration needs coming from the higher authorities, why was the Summerland Retirement Concepts granted a permit to expand its operation after the ministry knew of the terrible situation that had been occurring there? I'm not going to get into details. The minister is well aware of it.

Also, we've seen another expansion in Surrey with another retirement village. With this record that's occurring and the unfortunate inability to monitor the situation, why would the ministry continue to allow the expansion of these types of facilities by Retirement Concepts?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question. In terms of how these projects develop, again, each health authority has projects which they undertake. They may be assisted-living or residential care projects, but they go to the marketplace through a request-for-proposal process.

That RFP process is up on the Web according to prescribed standards so that all of the potential proponents are aware of the opportunity to enter into the P3 arrangement around the construction of the units. I believe this is the case for all, but it may be just the larger projects. There will be fairness adjudicators who oversee the processes to ensure that all is done consistent with the rules around procurement in this area.

Ultimately, after the health authority assesses a request for qualifications and the identified proponents…. After they assess the requests-for-proposal submissions that come in, the health authorities attempt to assess what would be the preferred proponent. They enter into a negotiation and, in most instances, likely conclude an agreement at that point.

Yes, Retirement Concepts have been successful in some of those processes. They have also been unsuccessful in some of those processes. Retirement Concepts don't

just operate Beacon Hill Villa. They operate, I think, 16 or 17 facilities across the province of British Columbia. Most of those have very good records in terms of no infractions.

There were some issues, without a doubt, at Beacon Hill. Without a doubt, the licensing officers reacted as they should have — that is, to make it clear in no uncertain terms that the infraction issues had to be remediated, and remediated in a way that they would not occur again. That's why VIHA took the serious step they did in appointing an administrator at that facility.

Again, Retirement Concepts is a large organization. Where issues arise…. It doesn't have to be with Retirement Concepts. They can arise with any provider. When those issues arise and when they're identified by the licensing inspectors, we take those infractions very seriously. We demand the timely remediation of any infractions that occur whether it's Retirement Concepts or anyone else in the province.

The reason why Retirement Concepts is sometimes successful is that sometimes they offer up the most attractive packages to the health authorities. They're successful sometimes, and they're unsuccessful other times.

D. Cubberley: I'd like to swing into some questions on Lyme disease in British Columbia. I would just begin by saying that Lyme disease is one of the fastest-rising infectious diseases in North America. There are over 20,000 cases a year being diagnosed in the United States to the south of us, yet in British Columbia today the claim is that there are only five to six cases of Lyme disease a year that are actually diagnosed.

I and many others are coming to believe that is because there are systemic barriers to diagnosing Lyme disease that need to be addressed and that it's critical that that be done promptly. In the period of time — really, in the last four months — since I have been a little more public on this topic, I have received more than 60 medical resumés from people who suffer with chronic Lyme disease now. There are very clear patterns to their experience with the British Columbia health care system.

Of the more than 60 that I have who have actually presented at some point at a doctor's office with a tick bite, with a bull's-eye rash on their body and with the symptoms that are outlined clearly in the B.C. HealthGuide — which are flu-like symptoms and nausea and chronic fatigue — not a single one achieved a clinical diagnosis of Lyme disease from a doctor, which even the Centre for Disease Control says is the standard.

Here's the Centre for Disease Control in their February 29, 2008, release in which they say: "Lyme disease should be diagnosed through a clinical evaluation of the patient's symptoms and risk of exposure to infected ticks. A blood test may also be administered, but this should not be interpreted in the absence of a clinical diagnosis."

Now, many of these 60-plus people that I'm dealing with directly who knew about Lyme disease when they went into the doctor's office were told that there's no Lyme disease in British Columbia. That's a very common pattern with doctors. Many of those who, therefore, because they weren't diagnosed, developed chronic Lyme disease, began to research their own symptoms, became aware of it and urged that their doctors consider Lyme disease as a diagnosis. They were told, aggressively told: "There is no Lyme disease in British Columbia."

Where doctors would actually countenance the idea that their symptoms might suggest Lyme disease, they would not clinically diagnose it. They insisted on administering the B.C. test. This is a test that, everybody says, diagnosis should not be dependent upon. There are very good reasons and acknowledged reasons for that, and one of them is that this is a test that generates 50 percent or higher false negatives. It is simply not a reliable tool for diagnosing Lyme disease, and that is established in the scientific literature. That is being used in numerous cases to close the door to achieving a diagnosis. That condemns people to develop chronic Lyme disease.

Clinical diagnosis of Lyme disease is not obtainable in a doctor's office today in British Columbia. I would be interested in knowing a single doctor in B.C., currently, who will clinically diagnose this disease, despite the fact that the B.C. HealthGuide says that if you have a tick bite and the symptoms: "Your doctor will probably be able to tell if you have Lyme disease based on your symptoms and whether you may have been exposed to deer ticks. In most cases blood tests to diagnose Lyme disease are not necessary." That's the B.C. HealthGuide.

It's not available today. That's not happening, and what that means is that people who have a new infection of Lyme disease from a tick bite are condemned to get chronic Lyme disease. They are condemned to allow it to get inside their bodies and then endure living with that.

My question really…. The course of treatment is remarkably simple, if you follow what the HealthGuide says, what the CDC says we should be doing and suggests doctors are doing. You can get rid of it permanently with a simple course of treatment.

My question to the minister: is he aware that doctors in B.C. are either not trained to diagnose this disease, are reluctant to clinically diagnose the disease or are outright actually afraid, because of the chill that's been put into this, to clinically diagnose a disease that every protocol everywhere suggests should be clinically diagnosed from symptoms? If he is, what is he going to do about it?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question. I know the hon. member well, and I know he's very sincere on this issue, as he knows I am.

I can't think of another area quite like this, where we have this disconnect between what the preponderance of medical practitioners and medical advice is versus the apprehension of some in the province that it is underdiagnosed, that it is far more common than is

believed by medical authorities. I have not seen in any other area the same level of disconnect as there is on this.

That does concern me, and I'd love to have some way — and I'm sure the hon. member would love to have some way — of reconciling what seem to be very different views of how common this is and how effective the response of the medical community has been to it. I'd love to resolve that.

I want to say, first of all, just so we're clear, that I don't believe that anyone, whether it's the provincial health officer or family physicians or others…. I haven't heard anyone say that Lyme disease does not exist. I think what I hear them saying is that they believe the real incidence of Lyme disease is in the area of five to ten cases annually in British Columbia.

They're also saying that physicians are trained to diagnose Lyme disease and that physicians should be vigilant, because Lyme disease does exist. Physicians should be vigilant about identifying and appropriately treating Lyme disease, but they don't believe that it is massively underdiagnosed. They do believe that it exists, but it's not massively underdiagnosed.

I understand that in fact the rates of Lyme disease diagnosed in British Columbia are comparable to those diagnosed in Washington, Oregon and Idaho. The member apparently has a different view, and he can advance that in a question.

The detail I have is that Lyme disease is an illness caused by a bacterium spread through the bites of certain types of ticks. In B.C. less than 1 percent of the more than 4,600 ticks tested carry this bacterium, and cases of Lyme disease here remain rare when compared to the eastern United States, where they're far more common, apparently.

The B.C. Centre for Disease Control monitors the province for Lyme disease and provides public alerts and information to physicians on risks, signs and symptoms of the disease. If a British Columbian is concerned about symptoms or exposure to Lyme disease, they can access diagnostic tests publicly covered under the Medical Services Plan.

Where I think some of the division of opinion or division of thought around Lyme disease occurs is around the testing protocols that exist for Lyme disease. The B.C. Centre for Disease Control laboratory services recommends a two-tiered approach to Lyme disease testing. First, blood samples are screened with a sensitive enzyme immunoassay test, or EIA test. Then positive or suspicious results must be confirmed by a highly specific western blot test before Lyme disease is positively identified.

This approach is also recommended by the Association of State and Territorial Public Health Laboratory Directors and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The B.C. Centre for Disease Control cautions against the use of invalidated tests for Lyme disease or interpreting results without appropriate guidelines, as this can lead to a number of false-positive tests.

For example, some private labs in the U.S. use a different standard of interpretation, thus returning a false-positive result on almost every test. In the view of the B.C. Centre for Disease Control, a false-positive test and hence an inaccurate diagnosis of Lyme disease can be harmful because, first of all, patients and doctors stop looking for other remediable causes or approaches to symptoms. Inappropriate antibiotic therapy for misdiagnosed Lyme disease can and has killed patients in the prime of their lives, and people suffering with treatable but debilitating conditions, such as MS or Parkinson's disease, do not receive appropriate therapy, which can lead to an unnecessary worsening of their conditions.

That is the view of the B.C. Centre for Disease Control and, I think, the view of the great preponderance of physicians and epidemiologists and so on in the province.

I think that the member asked at some point: do we know of any physicians who share the view of Dr. Murakami, who is no longer practising, I gather, but who has long held the view that Lyme disease is greatly underdiagnosed in the province? I don't know that there is. Again, I'm trying to be entirely constructive and respectful of the member's question, because just like the member, I'm concerned about the disconnect. I just don't know how to resolve it, and I'd welcome any advice the member might have on that.

D. Cubberley: A couple of things to grasp, I think. Everything recommends — including the press release you were just reading from, from the CDC — and says that diagnosis should not be dependent upon a test. Diagnosis should be based on symptoms. This is a recognized disease with a symptomology. It should be diagnosed from symptoms, and that's what it says right here: "Lyme disease should be diagnosed through a clinical evaluation of the patient's symptoms."

We're not getting that. Doctors do not understand the symptoms well enough, and there has been such a chill put into this, because of the line that we don't have Lyme disease in British Columbia, that doctors aren't learning — and there isn't a good vehicle for them to learn at this point — how to diagnose from symptoms.

Now, Dr. Murakami was a doctor who would clinically diagnose Lyme disease, and he's the only one in British Columbia that I'm aware of who would clinically diagnose it and treat it. What has happened as a result of that is that he has been hounded out of practice. For having had the courage to diagnose from symptoms and to use tests to try to confirm or not, but not be test-dependent, he has been driven out of practice.

So today we do not have, that I'm aware of, a single physician in British Columbia who will clinically diagnose what everybody says should be clinically diagnosed and should not be done through tests. What we have is that in a minority of cases, if cornered, doctors will do the test, and they use the B.C. test. The problem with the B.C. test is that it has 50 percent or better false negatives.

This is through scientific analysis. That test, which is the standard in the United States, had been examined

in an extensive study in 2005 at Johns Hopkins. A two-year study of Lyme disease serology showed that in 50 percent to 75 percent of the cases where people actually have the disease, this test doesn't show it — 50 percent false negatives.

This is a hugely problematic thing in the Centre for Disease Control press release, which you read out. "Some private labs in the U.S. use a different standard of interpretation and thus return a false-positive result on almost every test." That is categorically incorrect information. That is an attempt to portray the lab…. In this case, it's the IGeneX lab in California. All of the people, the 60 cases I have, who had to go to the United States to get analysis went to the IGeneX lab in the U.S.

That is a private lab that's being referred to here. It does not produce false positives in high numbers. In point of fact, it produces 70 percent shown negative of the cases that it tests. This is an outright attempt to character-assassinate that lab.

Interestingly, when a meeting was convened with the CDC, which I got to attend, the head of microbiology from that lab, Dr. Shah, flew up to defend the reputation of IGeneX from this kind of information being put about. It's seriously wrong.

I know enough. I'm not a doc, but I've looked into this far enough to know that this is part of the defending-the-past analysis which is going on in B.C. and which is preventing us from making progress today. We don't need the test to diagnose the disease in the first instance and provide a cure. The cure is quite simple. It's similar to syphilis, because this is a similar disease to syphilis. It's simply not acknowledged as being similar. Because it's not being clinically diagnosed, people are getting a chronic form of it.

Now, I think the question is: how do we move it forward? I think that begins with accepting that you need to be able to provide clinical diagnosis, and I would urge this upon the minister.

I was in California recently, visiting with family members. A relative on my wife's side of the family is the head of an ER room at a major hospital in San Francisco. Without any preparation of the ground, I asked him about Lyme disease: "What do you do? Do you have it here, and what do you do with it?" He very, very quickly went to symptoms and clinical diagnosis.

He said: "It's preventive. It's four weeks of doxycycline, and it's gone. We do it preventively here." I said: "Do you analyze the ticks?" He said: "We don't bother. We look at the symptoms that the patient has. If he has the symptoms, we treat them. Then there's no chance of chronic Lyme disease." And then he said to me: "It's just like syphilis. If you don't catch it at the front door, you will never get it out entirely."

The problem that we've got right now is that whatever the incidence is out there, we are underdiagnosing it at the front door. We are turning people into chronic Lyme sufferers, and there's a huge consequence to that.

I'll give you one instance, and then I'll invite a response from the minister. This is just one, but it's not untypical. This is a person who between 1999 and 2007, when Dr. Murakami began treating her with a sustained course of antibiotics, was bedridden the entire time and saw over 22 different physicians, 20 of them medical specialists, six specialists in total — a rheumatologist, a gastroenterologist, a geneticist, two infectious disease doctors and a regular doctor.

She was diagnosed as having Crohn's disease, then lupus, then MS, then bipolar. She had over 100 collections of blood, two barium X-rays, two weeks of hospitalization, three colonoscopies, one laparoscopy, one cystoscopy, several sets of X-rays, multiple ultrasounds, bone scans, EKG tests, heart monitoring, three MRIs and two CT scans.

All of this is avoiding clinical diagnosis of Lyme disease, which is treatable with antibiotics. So I just put that in front of the minister.

We have a serious problem. Whatever the incidence is, we're growing this misuse of the health care system by not diagnosing. Really, I've come to believe from talking to people that antibiotics are the answer. You know if it's Lyme disease because the symptoms will go away with antibiotics if it's Lyme disease, and if it's not Lyme disease, they won't. So front-end diagnosis is not a huge risk.

The question is: when are we going to begin addressing this problem? When are we going to equip doctors to diagnose it at the front end and so reduce the incidence of a treatable disease in British Columbia and stop what is happening to people now, which is terrible suffering? These people can't work for a living. They are debilitated. Some of them lose their mental capacity because it's disorienting.

Hon. G. Abbott: Further to the member's questions, I'm advised that physicians are diagnosing Lyme disease in the province, that they are treating that condition with antibiotics. Again, it's just an issue of how widespread the issue is and if it is all being picked up. We're not sure whether all physicians are fully reporting the number of cases that they see, and so on, but I don't think that there's an attempt by the B.C. Centre for Disease Control or anyone else to put a chill over this.

In fact, the B.C. Centre for Disease Control, in partnership with the ministry and the Provincial Health Services Authority, are in the next couple of days going to be releasing a media release entitled: "This Summer Protect Yourself Against Lyme Disease and Other Tick-borne Infections." The media release will talk about how Lyme disease can occur based on tick-borne infections, how these things occur, areas in the province that may be more subject to this risk than others, how to prevent tick bites, etc.

I don't think anyone wants to deny that Lyme disease exists, nor to deny that there is a risk of contracting it through a tick bite. But again, it goes back to the issue that I think we've been very constructively discussing here, which is the disconnect between the medical community and their view around this versus

I am concerned about that disconnect, as I know the member is. I don't like to have a situation where people lose their confidence in their medical practitioners and their medical system. One of the things that I want to do, and I've discussed this matter previously with the provincial health officer…. I would undertake, in response to the member's inquiry, to consult with the provincial health officer again and to work with him to see whether there is some way to try to resolve this more adequately than it has been to date.

Again, I'm not sure that it's going to be possible to really bridge the gap here between those who appear to have completely lost faith in their medical practitioners and those who are providing the medical advice and medical treatment. I'd like to think that we can try to work on some ideas with the provincial health officer about how to improve this situation, because I'm not satisfied. I mean, I can say all the things in defence of the B.C. Centre for Disease Control, and I believe them when I say them. But nevertheless, the fact that there's such a disconnect does trouble me. So I will be consulting further with the provincial health officer on that.

If the member has any additional submission that he'd want me to take to the provincial health officer, I'd be glad to do that, and we can discuss whether there's some way that, you know, we can move towards bridging this gap.

I had a question for the Minister of Health with respect to a private insurance company called Acure Health. The Minister of Health will know that Acure Health is providing something called wait-time insurance in British Columbia. It seems to me that that wait-time insurance scheme violates section 45 of the Medicare Protection Act at the very least, and perhaps other sections of that act.

The Minister of Health said in March that he'd been monitoring the activities of the company for a number of months, that he had seen enough evidence to prompt concern and that he was currently assessing his options with respect to actions around this company. Can the minister tell us what actions have been taken? Is the company before the Medical Services Commission right now? Is an investigation underway?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question on Acure Health. The member is correct in his recollection of the issue. We have been aware of the activities of this company for at least a few months and have been looking at their operations. We have been reviewing the operations of the company in respect of the intersection of the activities of that company with the Medicare Protection Act.

We also have obtained advice around how we ought to proceed. We are currently assessing where we should take this matter next. It is possible, for example, that we could refer this matter to the Medical Services Commission for review. We have also tried to ensure that the bodies with jurisdiction over the provision of insurance by private insurers in this province — that is, the Financial Institutions Commission and the Insurance Council of B.C. — are aware of this.

A. Dix: So the minister has been aware of it for some months, but no decision has been made. I believe the minister said — well, it was reported, but it's not in quotes, so you know you've always got to be careful with that — that it would be referred to the next meeting of the Medical Services Commission. Presumably, that has not happened. I'm just reading from the Parksville–Qualicum Beach News, so there you go, that it was the intention in March to refer it to the next meeting of the MSC.

It's not a contentious point; I just wanted to make sure whether it has or hasn't. It seemed to us, looking at the law around this, that given that it's an insurance company, it was actually possible that if the ministry or the government was going to take action, it would require action before the courts and not the Medical Services Commission. So I wanted to check whether it had, in fact, been referred or not.

Hon. G. Abbott: The Qualicum news, or whatever the source was that the member cited, is probably pretty close to accurate. The Medical Services Commission is aware of this. They've been made aware of Acure Health and their activities. The Medical Services Commission, I understand, like the ministry, are attempting to secure advice which would confirm the legality of the intersection of the activities of Acure Health with the Medicare Protection Act.

We're trying to understand whether the way in which this company is structured and delivers services is within or outside compliance with the Medicare Protection Act. As the member knows, sometimes those things are not obvious or transparent. One needs to be careful to understand fully the nature of the services being provided before forming conclusions about whether they are operating within or outside the bounds of the Medicare Protection Act.

That's the work that is underway. I'm sure that it is remarkably detailed and careful work.

A. Dix: We'll all be interested to hear the results. My legal advice has been that they're outside of the act. Hopefully, given that they've been in operation for some time, the minister will take some steps to ensure that the Medicare Protection Act is respected.

We're kind of in the lightning round now. We're right at the end — you know, short snappers. I want to express my appreciation to the minister. I think we've set a new record; 21 members of the opposition have asked the minister questions. That's pretty good in a number of days. Considering that we have five or six fewer hours for the estimates this year than we had last year, that's pretty good. I really appreciate the minister

and his staff, because it hasn't always been linear in the statements we asked, and it certainly won't be in the last 45 minutes either.

I want to ask the minister about e-health. I gave to the minister a list of questions I had with respect to what might broadly be viewed as questions around a series of important contracts that were given. I don't know if the minister is prepared to answer some of those questions now or in writing.

I'll ask him one specific question, though. Dr. Jonathan Burns was a senior adviser to the ministry. He had a very lucrative contract with the ministry — in the range, I think, of $330,000 a year. It's a contract that maybe the Deputy Minister of Health might like to have had, in terms of remuneration, anyway. I want to know whether Dr. Burns is still advising the Ministry of Health on these issues, and if he's not, when his contract was ended.

Hon. G. Abbott: I can advise the member that the answer is no. Dr. Burns's contract was suspended in July of 2007 and terminated in October of 2007.

A. Dix: So his contract was suspended and terminated consistent with the suspensions and the employment termination of the Assistant Deputy Minister of Health, Mr. Danderfer?

Hon. G. Abbott: The timing was parallel in both cases, but the processes were different.

A. Dix: But is it fair to say that Dr. Burns's contract did not expire, that it was terminated — I think the minister used that term — and that the issues for which it was terminated were the same issues that led to the somewhat early departure — I think it was a matter of weeks, but it was still an early departure — of Mr. Danderfer from the ministry?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the member's question, we think, was that by October we had gathered sufficient information or grounds for the termination of Dr. Burns's contract.

A. Dix: Dr. Burns is a prominent e-health entrepreneur, as well as, in the end, the person who was the senior adviser. I mean, he wasn't being paid chump change, and 330 grand is an enormous contract by any standard in the public sector. So I wanted to know what specific measures were taken when Dr. Burns was hired to address issues of conflict-of-interest.

I think, on the one hand, it's fair to say that you wouldn't hire someone in such a position that didn't have experience, so that's fair enough that people have relationships. On the other hand, the government in this period was tendering contracts whose value, conservatively, was certainly in the hundreds of millions and dollars, and whose long-term value might well be in the billions of dollars.

So I wanted to ask what specific steps were undertaken in the contract of Dr. Burns and in the discussions with Dr. Burns to ensure that issues of conflict were dealt with. Because companies that had associations with Dr. Burns won bids during this period. They won bids on government contracts. So that clearly would have been a concern in the hiring of Dr. Burns to begin with.

Is the member satisfied that steps were taken to ensure that Dr. Burns understood the conflict rules and that precautions were taken to ensure that at least reasonable protection of the public interest was undertaken in regard to that contract?

Hon. G. Abbott: Among the safeguards would be that when he signed his contract, Dr. Burns identified his two private companies, Pixalere and WebMed Technology Inc., which are active in the area of electronic health technology. Dr. Burns agreed to remove himself during the performance of the services described in the schedule when there may have been a real or perceived conflict-of-interest with these companies.

A. Dix: The minister is aware that those companies had very extensive…. This is an area where many companies work together. So it's not just the issues of the companies directly and their interests, but it's also of companies that were associated with WebMed and Pixalere that won contracts, I think that's fair to say, with the Ministry of Health.

So if it was the case that Dr. Burns was told: "Well, don't deal with issues directly related to those companies…." But he was dealing with issues. He was, because on the key contracts, including the electronic medical records contract, he was on and involved in the committees involved in the selection process. Companies that are partners on Dr. Burns's website with that company won bids.

Now that doesn't say anything. That just says that that happened. What I want to know, because there are hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars involved, is what precautions were taken to ensure not just that Dr. Burns's companies directly weren't involved but that the relationships Dr. Burns had with many other companies that were partners of his companies were dealt with?

Hon. G. Abbott: I can advise the member first that Dr. Burns had no influence over ministry contracts. He provided consultation services in the area of e-health. These projects included physician engagement and liaising with medical practitioner stakeholder groups.

Further, I can advise that the strategic acquisitions and technology procurement branch of the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services and the Attorney General's legal services branch reviewed the procurement process and found no evidence that the integrity of the procurement had been compromised. SATP has also confirmed that the selection committee accountable for evaluation of the proposals and awarding of the contracts to the six successful proponents did not include either Mr. Danderfer or Dr. Burns.

A. Dix: Dr. Burns was a member of the PITO committee. He is an associate member of the committee. It's ridiculous to suggest that he had no involvement in the process. He was being paid $330,000 a year — a mountain of money. The minister's suggestion is that he had no involvement in the decision-making, that the assistant deputy minister had no involvement in the decision-making?

That doesn't make sense. That doesn't mean anything, but this defence that they weren't involved, that you would pay somebody that much money to be involved in this process and not have them involved seems to me to be an unusual notion.

As the minister knows, I gave him, I think, some 40 questions on this subject. I asked him this in my first question: will he be prepared to respond in writing to those 40 questions? Because, again, the fact of their involvement in the subcommittees and the committee and the selection process — which was multiple-stage, right? There was a qualifying process. There was a change in that qualifying process that was made. The process was delayed. New criteria were set in place, and new people were selected. That was the EMR process.

There were many places where people's involvement was significant. I would suggest that it's fair to say that Mr. Danderfer and Dr. Burns should have been involved, given their positions, and that they were involved. So this notion that they weren't involved is just not consistent with what we know about these processes.

That having been said, we've provided the minister with questions in writing, and I want to ask the minister whether he would be prepared to respond to those questions in writing.

Hon. G. Abbott: I want to advise the member that he's made, I think, some fairly inflammatory comments in his most recent question. I have to tell the member that all of the answers that I've provided here are ones that have been carefully, carefully worded, carefully assessed in relation to this matter.

It's not a matter of what the member thinks. What I'm relaying to him are the facts around this issue. So yes, I'm absolutely prepared to answer the questions in writing, which we will do, but I also am prepared to go through the questions and answers here as well and provide the member with the benefit, orally here, of the responses to the questions.

So in terms of the EMR contracts. Again, I want to say this and say it very carefully: SATP staff actually signed off the RFP. A 25-member committee of the Ministry of Health staff, health authority staff and physicians prepared the EMR RFP. Neither Danderfer nor Burns were on the committee that prepared the EMR requests for proposals.

A. Dix: Well, I'm delighted to hear that the minister will be responding to those questions in writing. I'll be very interested to hear the response to the detailed questions we provided. Alas, I think that we're getting tight to the end here, so I don't think, given our average question time and response time, that 42 questions are likely to get in, in 25 minutes.

I appreciate the minister will respond to those questions, but I think it's fair to say that…. Again, I say in fairness that the circumstances around the departure of Dr. Burns from contracting with the government and Mr. Danderfer for working for the government…. The circumstances themselves, as I understand, had nothing to do with the EMR project itself. But we have a lot of serious questions, as did bidders and as did others, about the EMR project. We've asked those questions, and I look forward to hearing the answers.

One of the things that I get to do, Minister, is meet with lots of groups, as the minister does. A number of weeks ago I had the great opportunity to meet with people from around B.C. who are involved in the MS Society. We went through a process — they talked about how they could get questions answered, how they could bring their issues, the real issues that involve them, to the forefront.

One of the things they asked me to do is ask the minister a couple of questions on their behalf so that we get to do this right here and so on. One of the questions they had…. I think that it's a really good question, and it's one that involves not just the Ministry of Health, but I think the Ministry of Health could take real leadership here. It's really a broader public sector question, because it involves health. I'd like to ask the minister his idea about it.

They said that MS is often diagnosed during career-building years. One of the most disabling symptoms of MS is fatigue. What they're asking is if the provincial government will be a leader. Maybe the Minister of Health and the Ministry of Health could be a leader for people dealing with MS — all kinds of MS and in particular relapsing-remitting MS. Could the minister look at making changes and adjusting workplaces and creating flexible work rules within the Ministry of Health that might be an example for the entire government, to allow people with MS to pursue their career goals, given the limitations that sometimes come with suffering from really what can be a terribly debilitating disease?

Hon. G. Abbott: I had the opportunity to meet with representatives from MS as well, and they made a very thoughtful presentation. In terms of workplace, the Ministry of Health, and I think government as a whole, is dedicated to trying to ensure that not only people with MS but people who may have chronic diseases or chronic illnesses or who have mental or physical disabilities are also given an opportunity to work within the workplace.

In fact, we have instances at the Ministry of Health where we attempt to do that. So there certainly would be no difference for people with MS. When such an illness occurs, we would try to find ways to retain their skills and knowledge.

A. Dix: Question No. 2 from them. It is, not surprisingly, a question about drugs. It's a question about

Tysabri. It may be that this is another question that we can get from the Pharmacare people.

Essentially, they're asking to list Tysabri, and I have some issues around that. Given that Health Canada has approved Tysabri as a second-line therapy, if the current therapies fail…. Given that Tysabri is the first new disease-modifying therapy for MS in ten years, they'd like to ask the minister about availability of it.

It's one of the things that advocates struggle with — the process. We've had a little bit of debate about the process as well. There is a debate about the drug approval process all the time. They're really difficult questions, maybe some of the most difficult that the minister faces. The people of the MS Society asked me to ask the minister about Tysabri.

Hon. G. Abbott: I can advise the hon. member of this in relation to Tysabri: that it went through the Common Drug Review process. The recommendation of the Common Drug Review process was not to add Tysabri to the provincial formulary.

The company has appealed, through resubmission to the Common Drug Review, for reconsideration. We presume that we will see the result of that in due course, and then it would be reconsidered by the drug benefit committee as well and — obviously, depending on how the results come out — may or may not be added.

A. Dix: I also went through a similar process with the Fraser Valley Brain Injury Association recently. I just have a couple of questions. This is an area that I know the minister has had some interest in. We had, I think, some innovations with respect to that, on the research side and the supplementary estimates.

I wanted to ask the minister. As he knows, in 2002 the provincial brain injury program was devolved to the health authorities, and guidelines for brain injury services were developed in consultation with stakeholders at that time. I have three questions for the minister that are really the same question.

How does the Minister of Health propose to ensure that these guidelines are being followed and that funding is consistently available for adequate services? Secondly, Mental Health and Addiction's mandate includes acquired brain injury. Some of the cases in my office have been particularly heartbreaking. Why does this population have so much difficulty accessing mental health services? Thirdly, how do we propose to ensure that those services are available across the province and not just in the large population centres?

Hon. G. Abbott: The questions that the member raises are very good questions, and I don't want to take a disproportionate amount of time here trying to answer all of them thoroughly at this point, so we will provide the member with a more fulsome response to all the questions that he raised in his question by letter, just in the interests of time.

I would say this. The brain-injured are a subpopulation that we are looking very carefully at within the ten-year mental health plan. The brain-injured can have — not always, but sometimes — concurrent issues with substance abuse, with behavioral issues and so on. In terms of being consumers of mental health resources and being consumers in the criminal justice system and so on, there sometimes are those kinds of concurrent issues which make them a population which we do need to be very concerned about and think about, and try to reconcile their issues within the ten-year mental health plan.

A. Dix: I think we're actually coming to the end, you know — $13 billion in five minutes. This is a lot of pressure on these final questions, let me tell you.

I'll just leave the minister with a question that, again, is an issue that people have brought to my attention and brought to the attention of my colleague from Cowichan-Ladysmith. It involves bariatric surgery, and really, as the minister will know, that surgery is in fact covered by MSP when it is deemed as medically necessary.

One of the main concerns that people have is with respect to MSP coverage of reconstructive surgery after the original surgery has taken place. That issue is one where coverage is often not available. So patients find themselves, after having had a very significant and important surgery, with very considerable costs in terms of reconstructive surgery. This is an issue that many proponents — many people who are involved or who have relatives involved and who either need or have had the surgery — have brought to my attention. I'm wondering if it's an issue that has come to the minister's attention.

I have one more question after this, so I'll sit down and let the minister answer.

Hon. G. Abbott: This is an appropriate issue for the member to raise. As we see more bariatric surgeries occurring in the province, this issue of the sort of excess-skin post–bariatric surgery is an issue which also presents itself.

I know that in some instances there is coverage for the procedure. Presumably, medical necessity is the determining factor in terms of coverage or not coverage or public versus private.

I can, for example, suggest that he contact his own Opposition House Leader, because we worked through a case in my office for one of his constituents on this. In some cases that post-bariatric work can be covered, but it will depend on the circumstance.

I guess that the best we can do here at this point is to suggest that where members have constituents who believe that it is medically appropriate or necessary for them to have this surgery, they could provide me — or whoever the Health Minister of the time happens to be — with the details, provide me with that information, and we will try to work through the process as we did with the Opposition House Leader.

A. Dix: Thank you. I'm very appreciative to the minister for that. I know that a number of my colleagues have had issues brought to their attention. I know I met with a group of people from Vancouver Island in that circumstance just recently. I think that's very helpful. I appreciate that offer.

I just want to end with an invitation. The Health Minister meets with many people; I meet with many people. One of the most moving meetings I had recently was with the family of a woman named Malony Shrivastava, who passed away from breast cancer a number of years ago. She made quite an extraordinary film, and I'll be sharing that with the Minister of Health.

These aren't people that I knew. They came to my office a couple of weeks ago. Mr Shrivastava has started a foundation in her name, and what they're exploring are experiences that they discovered in terms of both alternative medicine and pain management and what she dealt with in her life.

He's hosting, actually, on June 24 in association with, I think…. Representatives of the Canadian Cancer Society, the B.C. Cancer Agency, the Gates Foundation and the SFU faculty of health sciences and others are going to come and review existing research on complementary and alternative medicine, particularly as it relates to pain management. It's going to be at UBC. I'll forward to the minister's office some information about it. I believe that the minister has been invited, but I'm not certain of that.

I just wanted to say that I think what the family is doing here is extraordinary. I think that the case is extraordinary. I hope and I encourage the minister…. He may not, of course, be able to go because it's only a few weeks from now. He obviously has a busy schedule. But I'd encourage him, if he can't go, if he's got the invitation, to really send some representatives from the ministry. I think that the group is really quite a powerhouse group that he's putting together. Their cause and their interest are really compelling.

With that, I would like to thank all the staff of the ministry and all my colleagues, because we've had a really broad participation in the debate. I thank the minister, as always. I'll sit down and let the minister move the appropriate motion — right on time, hon. Chair.

Just in closing, I would like to, also, thank all the MLAs who have participated in these estimates debates for the Ministry of Health. I thought that we had some very good and constructive dialogue here, and that's what estimates is about — at least, in the best of circumstances. So I thank all members for their participation.

I do want to, also, express my appreciation to all of the officials who have been part of the Ministry of Health process of putting together estimates debate materials. The ministry is a very large and complex ministry, but it's a great ministry because we have just awesome leadership in the ministry, and I don't mean me. I mean my deputy and the assistant deputy ministers and all of the executive directors and directors in the ministry.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member says I should include myself. Well, it would be immodest for me to do that.

I do thank all of the Ministry of Health officials. It's a huge job, as you can see by these huge soft-tissue-injury binders that they pack around. There's an extraordinary amount of information that is put together for these things, and it's amazing that these sometimes difficult and detailed questions that come up can actually be answered. So I thank the ministry for the great work they've been doing on these estimates and, of course, all the other work around the seven bills we're working through the assembly.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the committee rise, report resolution of the Ministry of Health estimates and ask leave to sit again.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.


	YEAS — 40

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Christensen	Richmond
Bell	Krueger	van Dongen
Les	Roddick	Hayer
Lee	Jarvis	Nuraney
Whittred	Horning	Cantelon
Thorpe	Oppal	de Jong
Taylor	Bond	Abbott
Penner	Neufeld	Coleman
Hogg	Sultan	Bennett
Lekstrom	Mayencourt	Polak
Hawes	Yap	Bloy
MacKay	Black	McIntyre
	Rustad

	NAYS — 27

Hammell	S. Simpson	Fleming
Farnworth	Ralston	Cubberley
Austin	Thorne	Simons
Puchmayr	Fraser	Wyse
Sather	Horgan	Gentner
Dix	Trevena	Bains
Macdonald	Evans	Krog
Chudnovsky	Chouhan	Coons
Routley	Lali	Conroy