2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, November 2, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 6, Number 7

[ Page 1859 ]

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2009

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. de Jong: Over the years and the decades British Columbians and this House have been served by some incredibly talented individuals in the capacity of Attorney General. Today we had a brief ceremony in the rotunda, and we honoured the achievements of all of those individuals. I'm so pleased that seven past Attorneys General were able to be here today. I'd like to introduce them to the….

Interjection.

Hon. M. de Jong: They are a shy, retiring lot.

The dean of the alumni group, who helped, I think it's fair to say, make the ceremony at noon a smashing success is — and I hope the House will welcome all of these individuals — Garde Gardom, who served from 1975 to 1979; Brian Smith, who served as Attorney General from 1983 to 1988; Russ Fraser, who served from 1990 to 1991; Colin Gabelmann, who served from 1991 to 1995; Andrew Petter, who was Attorney General in the millennium year of 2000; Graeme Bowbrick, who served from 2000 to 2001; and my immediate predecessor, who served from 2005 to 2009, Mr. Wally Oppal.

They are all deserving of our respect. The House has already made them feel welcome and I know will do so once again. [Applause.]

[1335]

Hon. K. Heed: Good afternoon. I'd ask the House to please join me in welcoming some more very special guests today. Since the tragic death of their daughter Reena, Suman and Manjit Virk have turned heartbreak into hope by sharing their story in an effort to prevent similar tragedies. The Virks, in honour of Reena, have spoken at schools and community events to educate teens and the public about the true costs of bullying.

These parents are truly an inspiration. I would ask all members to join me in welcoming them, along with their son Aman and his wife, Elizabeth, to the assembly today.

Also in the House today is a very good friend of the Virks. He, too, works with our young people to combat crime and build safer communities. I would also ask all members to join me in welcoming Const. Paul Brookes of the Victoria police department, who we are proud to welcome to the Legislature today.

Tributes

VANCOUVER ISLAND RAIDERS

R. Cantelon: On Saturday the Vancouver Island Raiders, for the third consecutive year, won the Canadian Junior Football League championship. In two weeks Nanaimo will host the Canadian championship game.

The Surrey Rams fought hard. Their quarterback was flattened and had trouble getting up, but Cam Clark got up and tried again. Congratulations to the Vancouver Island Raiders, and good luck in the Canadian championships in two weeks.

Introductions by Members

Hon. I. Chong: Somewhere in the precinct — I know they're touring — is a group of students from a school in my riding. That is Hillcrest Elementary School. There are 29 grade 4 students and six adults, led by their teacher, Miss Margot Kirkpatrick. They may show up at any time. I know they are in the precinct. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Statements

mcdonald's champion kids
Selection of Johnathan Botelho

Hon. S. Bond: On behalf of my colleagues from Prince George–Mackenzie and Nechako Lakes…. We wanted to share a very good news story with the members this afternoon.

Olympic excitement is building, and that's the case in northern B.C. as well. There is a program called McDonald's Champion Kids, and it chooses 11 children from across Canada to participate in an international program connected to the Olympics. The students were chosen by a selection committee, including two-time Olympic gold medallist Cassie Campbell.

We are thrilled to tell you that one of those champion kids is from Prince George. Johnathan Botelho is a grade 7 student, a member of the local under-12 all-star A level soccer team. His enthusiasm for sports and great communication skills have allowed him to be a cub reporter on CKPG TV's Cougar View as well as a junior announcer at the CN Centre during Cougar games. He's an outstanding youth leader and now a McDonald's champion kid. He will be attending the Olympics, visiting cultural sites, interacting with other champion kids from around the world and filing a few stories, I am sure.

We are absolutely proud of Johnathan and wish him a wonderful time at the Olympics.
[ Page 1860 ]

Introductions by Members

G. Hogg: We are delighted, I'm sure, to have with us in the gallery today a gentleman, a bon vivant, a former ministerial assistant to a gentleman who thinks he's a star basketball player — he is, clearly, a former Attorney General, Mr. Wally Oppal — and a man who is currently the recipient of higher learning here in our province. Would you please join me in welcoming Mr. Terry Lalari.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — AMBULANCE SERVICES
COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT ACT

Hon. K. Falcon presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that Bill 21, the Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act, be introduced and read a first time now.

[1340]

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: The Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act is designed to bring an end to the current impasse between the Emergency and Health Services Commission and CUPE 873, the union representing ambulance paramedics and dispatchers in British Columbia.

When B.C.'s paramedics began their job action on April 1, earlier this year, we sincerely hoped that a mutually agreeable settlement could be reached. Unfortunately, despite numerous attempts over the past seven months, the two sides have been unable to resolve their differences. The last offer made to the union was generous, given the difficult economic challenges we face as a province, and it is in keeping with what other public sector workers will receive in 2009-10.

We value the work and services of B.C.'s 3,500 ambulance paramedics, and many of us have great relationships with individual paramedics across the province. However, we are concerned that the longer this dispute drags on, the higher the risk for patients, a risk we are no longer prepared to countenance. With the H1N1 pandemic impacting the acute care system and with the busy holiday season fast approaching, the public needs certainty that they'll have the care they need in an emergency. It is time to move forward in the interests of all British Columbians.

It is not a decision we have come to lightly. The settlement we've put forward in the act reflects the key elements of the offer made by the B.C. Ambulance Service during the last round of talks in September. It is a one-year deal, retroactive to April 1, 2009, and includes a competitive compensation increase of 3 percent in wages this year, in line with other public sector workers. This wage increase was accepted by the union in September.

In addition, I will be calling on the Minister of Labour to appoint an industrial inquiry commissioner to identify options for repairing the labour relations structure between the two parties before the next round of bargaining in the new year. The union indicated that the appointment of an industrial inquiry commissioner was the most important issue to address, and we agree. In particular, I also intend to address the issues raised by rural paramedics, who face unique challenges under the existing structure.

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

Bill 21, Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act, 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.

BILL 20 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2009

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2009.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Bill 20, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2009, amends the following statutes: Animal Disease Control Act, Community Care and Assisted Living Act, Community Living Authority Act, Criminal Records Review Act, Election Act, Forest Act, Forestry Revitalization Act, Homeowner Protection Act, Hydro and Power Authority Act, Land Surveyors Act, Livestock Identification Act and Motor Dealer Act. This bill also represents the final piece of legislation that the government intends to introduce for passage during this session.

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

Bill 20, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2009, 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.
[ Page 1861 ]

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

B.C. CRIME PREVENTION WEEK AND
SURREY COMMUNITY SAFETY AWARDS

S. Cadieux: Today I would like to acknowledge the many British Columbians who are working to make their communities safer places to live. To that end, I would like to read the following proclamation:

[1345]

"Whereas the week of November 1 to 7, 2009, has been designated as Crime Prevention Week in British Columbia and in recognition thereof, communities throughout the province are actively participating in this event; and whereas the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General and crime prevention groups throughout the province wish to heighten public awareness of crime prevention programs; and whereas the success of crime prevention depends on the people working together in families, neighbourhoods, businesses, communities and youth groups to promote safer streets in every community; and whereas British Columbia encourages local governments to build strong communities that discourage crime and work cooperatively with justice and law enforcement agencies, crime prevention groups, communities, schools, youth groups and businesses to build public awareness and involvement in crime prevention activities; and whereas our Lieutenant-Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the executive council, has been pleased to enact Order-in-Council 903 on October 11, 2002; now know ye that we do by these presents proclaim and declare the week of November 1 to 7, 2009, inclusive shall be known as Crime Prevention Week in the province of British Columbia."

I'd also like to recognize two Surrey winners of the Crime Prevention and Community Safety Awards this year: the Surrey board of education, for their safe schools program; and Carrie Chattell, an RCMP employee in Cloverdale who developed a six-week course entitled "Protecting Yourself" in response to the needs of her community. I'd like to have the House encourage that.

PATIENT SAFETY

M. Mungall: Well, this week marks the beginning of Patient Safety Week all over Canada. The Canadian Patient Safety Institute launched Canadian Patient Safety Week as an annual campaign every year nationally. This week is part of the institute's mandate to build and advance a safer health system for Canadians.

The theme of Canadian Patient Safety Week is "Ask, listen, talk," because communication is key to patient safety. Good health care starts with good communication. If something doesn't seem right, ask questions, listen to the answers, and discuss your concerns.

Asking, listening and talking are exactly what Nelson and West Kootenay residents have been doing since 2002. Concerned about patient safety in rural areas, West Kootenay residents have been asking questions about their health care system, listening to a wide variety of answers and, of course, talking about their experiences and their concerns.

Transportation between communities and health services is a very big issue that impacts patient safety. Access to acute therapeutic and long-term care in our communities is a major talking point. Thousands across the country will participate in events that raise awareness. One of the things that this week reminds us is that between 9,000 and 24,000 people die each year as a result of preventable adverse events or harm in Canadian hospitals.

There are more deaths each year due to adverse events and preventable harm in hospitals than deaths from breast cancer, motor vehicle accidents and HIV combined. I'd like to take this opportunity to applaud the residents in my area who are dedicated to the concept of patient safety and committed to improving it.

SURREY AND WHITE ROCK
community resources fair

D. Hayer: Last week I attended an exceptional community resource fair hosted by Peace Arch Community Services Society, in partnership with the Progressive Intercultural Community Services Society, at my old high school, Queen Elizabeth Secondary.

More than 48 very important community organizations participated in this event. The fifth annual fair provided a huge information resource for my constituents in Surrey-Tynehead and for all residents of Surrey and White Rock.

The list of organizations that participated range from the Alzheimer Society to the Surrey Hospice Society, Surrey RCMP, Legal Services Society, Options: Services to Communities Society, Tzu Chi Foundation, South Fraser Women's Services, Surrey Food Bank, DiverCity, Children's Foundation, South Fraser Community Services Society, Newton Advocacy Group, SEEDS, Immigrant Services Society of B.C., Atira Women's Resource Society, Canadian National Institute for the Blind, Community Living B.C. and a host of others — also, representatives of such diverse groups as the Shell Busey home referral network, RBC Foundation, Surrey Board of Trade.

This incredibly informative day for Surrey residents would not have been possible without the outstanding organizational skills of such persons as Anthony Intas, Charan Gill, Victoria Clements, Satbir Cheema, Sue Sanderson, Sandy Alleyn, Jessie Kergan, Yasmin Ali, Jagtar Dhaliwal, Gurinder Budwal and Renu Gambhir.

Special thanks must also go to many, many volunteers, including Diane Elmer, Teresa Beck, Don Cosens, Dan Sardinha, Teresa Campbell, Sandy Alfonso and Shafeem Kahn.

I ask all the members to join me in congratulating and thanking all those mentioned and many, many more individuals, organizations and sponsors who worked so hard to make this event very successful and accessible information provided to the community as a resource for the residents of Surrey and the citizens of White Rock.

[1350]
[ Page 1862 ]

commemoration of
internment of UKRAINIAN CANADIANS

K. Conroy: On October 24, I attended a moving ceremony in Edgewood to unveil a plaque commemorating Ukrainian Canadians wrongfully interned during the First World War. Now, most Canadians know about the Japanese Canadians who were interned during World War II and the Québécois who were detained in the '70s, both under the War Measures Act, but I have found very few people who know that the Ukrainian Canadians were the first group of people to have suffered under this notorious act.

The federal government set up 24 internment camps across the country. The internees were housed in bunkhouses and were employed in hard labour, including roadbuilding. In Edgewood they built the road to nowhere, as there was no ferry crossing on the Arrow Lakes at the time.

Dr. Lubomyr Luciuk of the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the UCCLA, who specializes in the political geography of eastern Europe and the ethnic and immigration history of Canada, described it best: "Keep in mind that these were civilians who had come to Canada expecting to find freedom…who had done nothing wrong yet found themselves described as enemy aliens and herded together in camps and forced to do heavy labour, even though that was prohibited by existing international laws governing…prisoners of war."

This day, though, was about recognition and celebration and that this wrong should be righted and these people's contribution to our history remembered. While no survivors of these camps remain alive today, the unveiling of the plaque was a symbolic restitution of an act that should never again be repeated in this country.

The plaque, permanently situated at the entrance to the Edgewood Internment Camp site, was unveiled by longtime Edgewood residents Dot and Rollie Crabbe and Ron and Phyllis Volansky. I want to thank the local UCCLA coordinator, Andrea Malysh, and the other UCCLA members, the Edgewood Community Internet Society and the Edgewood Royal Canadian Legion branch No. 203 for the fabulous lunch they provided and everyone who was involved for ensuring a very successful and memorable event.

STRONGSTART B.C. CENTRES
IN NORTH VANCOUVER

J. Thornthwaite: On Friday I had the pleasure of attending the openings of two more StrongStart B.C. programs in North Vancouver, with my former colleague Susan Skinner, the board chair; Rick Chan, who's the principal; childhood educator Heather Van Haltren; Joanne Robertson; and Irene Young. I was very pleased to be there to meet with them again.

The preschoolers of both Lynn Valley and Seymour Heights now have the opportunity to learn in an interactive and fun environment. Not only does this partnership create a stronger community. It also creates an environment that facilitates early learning and literacy for our little ones.

As a parent with three children in North Vancouver, I appreciate the values that these centres represent, and I know that if they had been available when my kids were young, I would have been eager to participate in the learning opportunities they represent.

These centres require great teamwork between school districts, schools, educators and, of course, the public. It's an investment into the future of our province, as the children of today are our leaders and innovators of tomorrow.

The official opening of Lynn Valley and Seymour Heights brings the total to seven StrongStart centres in North Vancouver. This goes to show that the communities in North Vancouver are dedicated to providing our youth with access to all of the skills they need to be successful.

Children are our most precious resource. We must do everything we can to give them the best of all possible starts in school and in life. By working together, we will reach our goal and make British Columbians the best-educated and most literate people in North America.

ROLE OF PRINCE RUPERT
IN POTASH EXPORT INDUSTRY

G. Coons: Taking the lead from Terrace's Hockeyville success, Prince Rupert is poised to become Potashville. As the Saskatchewan potash industry pushes to double exports in the next decade, those in Prince Rupert anticipate they will tap into the Port of Prince Rupert to try to avoid the rail congestion to other locations.

Canpotex, an internationally recognized business, plans to adds about 11 million tonnes of shipping capacity by 2012, almost doubling its current capacity. Just over a month ago over 500 people turned out to a public meeting about the project in Prince Rupert. The magnitude of community support caught Jon Somers, vice-president of Canpotex, off guard.

At the heart of the matter is a proposal to either build a $400 million potash terminal on Ridley Island — which Somers said would probably be the world's largest and the world's most innovative and will create hundreds of construction jobs, with 80 to 100 full-time operational jobs — or to expand their existing facility in Vancouver. Somers sees it as a gateway, a straight shot from Saskatchewan to Prince Rupert right to the heart of Asia.

[1355]

Prince Rupert, as we know, is the closest North American port to Asian markets, with faster sailing times,
[ Page 1863 ]
lower costs. It can handle the largest of cargo ships, unlike Vancouver. Don Krusel, president and CEO for the Prince Rupert Port Authority, is confident that the Prince Rupert gateway will provide Canpotex and the potash industry with significant advantages in growing their export business.

The project also reinforces the success that can be achieved when CN, the port authority and the Coast Tsimshian First Nation work together to demonstrate the strategic advantages of our trade corridor.

The price of potash, a key ingredient for fertilizer, has fluctuated over the past year. But every morning the rush to check out the TSX puts a strain on our local Internet speed as we get poised to raise the banner. Prince Rupert is Potashville.

L. Reid: I beg leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

L. Reid: I am pleased to introduce a group of students visiting from Portland State University in the School of Government. They are with us for an educational day of presentations to learn about our system of parliamentary democracy. They are both graduate and undergraduate students enrolled in a Congress and parliaments course. They are accompanied by their professor, Dr. Richard Clucas.

I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR
KITIMAT FOREST WORKERS

R. Austin: As we raised last week, 535 workers are losing their jobs as a result of the permanent closure of the Eurocan pulp mill in Kitimat. I was home this weekend, and I can tell you that this announcement is having devastating impacts on the town, the workers and their families. Everyone, quite frankly, is in shock.

I also found out that senior bureaucrats from the Ministry of Community Development will be heading to Kitimat on Wednesday. To the Minister of Community Development: will these officials be bringing a cheque for $2 million to provide immediate assistance to Kitimat to plan for a future without Eurocan?

Hon. B. Bennett: I would like to start by repeating something that my colleague the Minister of Forests said last week to the member and to anyone else in this House who lives in a community that is dependent on the forest industry, as I do. I still have some mills that are down, as the member opposite does.

I'd like to extend my heartfelt sympathies to the 535 workers and their families. I have some idea, from talking to my own constituents, of what that's like. It's not an easy time for them. It's not an easy time for the community.

However, we will do everything we possibly can, not only through the ministry that I'm responsible for and the Rural Secretariat, but I know the Minister of Forests is interested and keen to help with this situation. I know that the Premier has spoken with the mayor, and together this government will do absolutely everything that we can.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: On behalf of the community of Kitimat, I do appreciate the sympathies of the minister, but now it's truly time for action. Before the election Mackenzie and Fort St. James got $2 million in direct aid. Why wouldn't Kitimat get this right away? It makes no sense to delay this assistance.

The workers in Kitimat also need direct aid. They need to know that they will be directly assisted to make their own transition. Will the Minister of Community Development commit today to add provincial dollars to the community development trust transition fund specifically for the workers at Eurocan?

Hon. B. Bennett: Despite the fact that our government cut the school taxes for major industry in the province by 50 percent and despite the fact that we have the second-lowest corporate income taxes in the country and despite the fact that we have the promise of $140 million going into the forest industry when HST is implemented on July 1, 2010, this particular company made a business decision that this business was no longer viable.

I know that the NDP's first reaction to everything is: "Let's just cut a cheque." We have people going to Kitimat, as the hon. member has already mentioned. We'll have a discussion. We'll take some time and figure out what we can do.

[1400]

I can say to the member that both Fort St. James and Mackenzie are 100 percent forest-dependent. I would suggest to him that if he looks around at the potential that Kitimat and the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine have, he will see there is a lot of opportunity there in addition to forestry.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON
FOREST INDUSTRY

C. James: Well, the minister's response shows that there is no plan in place for the workers in Kitimat — absolutely no plan in place for the workers in Kitimat — just as this government has refused to have a plan in
[ Page 1864 ]
place for the 50 forestry mills that have shut down across our province. No plan in place, as tens of thousands of workers lose their jobs on the Island, the Kootenays, the Interior, the north.

My question is to the Minister of Forests. At a time when B.C. Liberal policies have hurt 535 Kitimat families and tens of thousands of workers across our province, how does he explain not having a plan in place to deal with the crisis in the forest industry?

Hon. P. Bell: In fact, this government has a very in-depth strategy and plan, and it's starting to pay off benefits.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. P. Bell: The members of the opposition may not have paid attention to the amount of effort that we've put into growing the Chinese market. Yet every single economist, every single individual you talk to says that that is the future market that we need to be focusing our resource-based industries on.

In the last six years we've built that market from one that was not even in the top ten markets for British Columbia. This year China will be our second-largest market. It's a market that's going to continue to grow.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: We just got another example — and the people of Kitimat and forest workers across this province got another example — that the minister just doesn't get it, doesn't get that we've got a crisis.

On October 21 the minister told the Cowichan Lake District Chamber of Commerce that he is "excited about the course the government has been charting for the forest industry." Excited. The 535 forest workers in Kitimat and the tens of thousands across this province who have lost their jobs just don't buy it.

It took this government a few weeks to be able to come up with a plan to spend half a billion dollars on a new roof for B.C. Place. But they've had eight years of a crisis in the forest industry, and they've done nothing.

Again, my question is to the minister. How many more communities will have to be in crisis before this government will finally act?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm glad the member opposite gave me another opportunity to talk about some of the real windows that are open for the forest industry going forward. You know, Mr. Speaker, this government has made a significant commitment to the bioenergy industry. In fact, we produce enough electricity through our bioenergy industry already to electrify about 700,000 homes provincewide. But that's not enough.

We're becoming one of the largest pellet producers in North America, electrifying actually most of the European marketplace as well. We're growing new opportunities with companies like Lignol, with companies like Nexterra energy, as a result of the $35 million that we've put into the B.C. Bioenergy Network and as a result of the innovative clean energy fund that is ongoing.

This government is committed to a new, revitalized forest industry, and bioenergy is going to be one of the key components of that.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: The minister's words are cold comfort to those families in Kitimat, to that community which is struggling, to the tens of thousands of workers across this province who, for the last eight years, have heard those hollow words from this minister and this government and who have seen over 50 mills closed down. The government's response has been to gut protections for workers — a failure to pay attention until after the damage is done.

Again, a straightforward question to the minister: will he finally admit that the B.C. Liberal forest policy has failed communities like Kitimat, and will he admit that they don't have a plan in place to deal with a crisis in our major industry in British Columbia?

[1405]

Hon. P. Bell: This government is absolutely committed to revitalizing the forest industry in what is the most difficult period for forestry ever, historically, in North America. The member opposite may not have noticed, but the U.S. housing market that used to build two million homes per year is down to about 500,000 homes per year. Our industry has continued to function, albeit in very, very difficult circumstances. We're building new opportunities, whether it's through China, whether it's through bioenergy, whether it's through wood-first policies in big buildings.

You know what, Mr. Speaker? HST is the biggest single thing that we can do to enhance our forest industry — $140 million a year. That works out to $7 per thousand board feet of production. That makes our industry the most competitive one anywhere in the world.

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR
KITIMAT FOREST WORKERS

N. Macdonald: The minister talks about the HST. He didn't before the election, but now it seems something that he likes to roll out. What's clear is that we had a long list of tax cuts, and they led to nothing. Each and
[ Page 1865 ]
every time this government comes forward with one of these policies, there is a promise of jobs, jobs, jobs. But it never happens. What we have seen is a comprehensive failure — 25,000 jobs lost. Eight years of B.C. Liberal mismanagement.

For communities like Kitimat, it is almost a week. There has been nothing put in place by this government. This is not the first community. This is the 55th mill that has gone down. For a government to flounder after 55 mills with no plan in place is a disgrace — an absolute disgrace.

My question for this minister is: what specifically has he done for Kitimat? What specifically has he done in the almost week that he has had to deal with this issue?

Hon. P. Bell: If the member would tone down the rhetoric and actually have a reasonable conversation around this discussion, it might be that people could accomplish something. It's been very challenging to have to listen to this on an ongoing basis.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. P. Bell: I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, we've been absolutely committed to working with the people of Kitimat. I attended a conference call with the mayor and council, an extraordinary council meeting that was held last Thursday afternoon. My colleague the Minister of Community Development has individuals going in this week to work with mayor and council to make sure they're aware of all of the programs and opportunities that are available.

My district manager for the district, the forest district there, is travelling to Kitimat, as well, to find out what the key issues and opportunities are. We've got a wide array of programs that we're going to work with Kitimat to make sure that we help mitigate this.

It's time for all of us to work together on this. The member needs to cut through the rhetoric and actually start working collaboratively on these issues.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: The government was asked: "Is there $2 million?" There's no answer there. That hasn't been thought about. Is there money, any provincial money at all, for the transition programs that are needed? There's none. That hasn't been thought through.

The question that I put to the minister is…. It is clear that the B.C. Liberal forest policy is a complete and comprehensive failure. That is evident for everyone to see. That failure continues. The CEP represents workers at Eurocan in Kitimat. They're calling for a multiparty federal-provincial emergency summit on forestry to lay out a new direction for forest policy in the province. Does the minister support that call?

Hon. P. Bell: I talk with the folks from the CEP, including the national head, on a regular basis. They've not yet asked me to attend that. I have a lot of respect for David Coles, the leadership of the CEP, and I'll be working with them as we move forward on this file.

[1410]

But I'm a little bit tired of hearing the lack of support for those communities. The job opportunities program has already delivered over $5 million to the people of Kitimat-Stikine — 130 resource jobs directly as a result of that — $125,000 in retraining, $2.2 million to help support the fibre basket and expanding the opportunities in the region, not to mention the $404 million in the northwest transmission line and billions of dollars in a new port, a new pipeline and a whole new series of business opportunities for the people of the northwest of this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Staffing for
Prince Rupert audiology clinic

G. Coons: Hundreds of infants and children from Prince Rupert, the coastal communities and Haida Gwaii who are at very high risk for hearing problems are still not receiving the diagnostic treatment services they need. Why? The brand-new $600,000 audiology clinic in Prince Rupert lacks the staff it needs to operate because this government has failed to deliver on its funding commitments.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Will the minister release the operational funds that this government promised for the clinic?

Hon. K. Falcon: Thank you for the question. I will endeavour to get the information for the member. I suspect that one of the challenges may be around the area of recruitment. That has been an ongoing challenge for us in rural-remote communities, but I will be happy to get the information for the member and answer it, hopefully, to his satisfaction.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

G. Coons: I appreciate that, Minister. But when we look at what's happening in Prince Rupert, this job hasn't even been posted. Jess Rainey, the northwest senior audiologist, resigned last May due to the lack of commitment from this government and this minister to audiology services in the northwest. And it hasn't been posted.
[ Page 1866 ]

Again, will the minister provide the audiology clinic with the services as promised and at least direct Northern Health to post the position?

Hon. K. Falcon: First of all, I do know that one of the health authorities that has performed in an outstanding manner and continues to is Northern Health Authority. We receive plaudits on the work they do every single day.

With respect to the issue of if it may or may not be a challenge of trying to recruit and retain audiologists at the facility the member is talking about, I will get the information for the member. But I can assure you that one thing I am proud of is that it was this government that brought in those testing processes for all young British Columbians in the province of British Columbia. We're proud of that.

SUPPLY OF H1N1 VACCINE TO
COPEMAN CLINIC

J. Brar: The Copeman clinic is a private medical clinic that charges new clients close to $4,000 for services. Can the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport tell this House why a special supply of H1N1 vaccine was made available to the members of the Copeman clinic?

Hon. K. Falcon: The answer is that the vaccines that are provided from back east are distributed through the B.C. Centre for Disease Control to every health office and every licensed practitioner in British Columbia in accordance with a process that recognizes that whether it is a private clinic, a public clinic or a private doctor's office — which, in most cases, doctor's offices are — they all receive the same amount. It is to be provided to those that have chronic health care conditions, in accordance with the phased processing of the vaccination program, at no cost.

That will be the case for Copeman and any other clinic that has received those vaccines from the B.C. Centre for Disease Control.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Brar: The reality is this. The shortage of H1N1 vaccine is leaving at-risk groups, including pregnant women, individuals with chronic diseases, young children, waiting for the vaccine at public health clinics. Can the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport again tell this House why a special supply of H1N1 vaccine was made available to the members of the Copeman clinic and what steps the minister has taken to ensure the Copeman clinic follows provincial protocol?

[1415]

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, as I said in my last answer, Copeman health clinic will be treated like every other medical practitioner. They are given an allotment of vaccinations. They are required to deliver those vaccinations in accordance with the directives of the program, and that is to chronically ill patients first, as part of the phased processing of this. They will do that, as professionals. They are all licensed professional doctors, and they will deliver that at no cost for the benefit of the patients that fit those categories.

To the member's other point about crowds, it's one of the reasons why we are asking the public to recognize that this is the largest vaccination program in the history of the province of British Columbia. It's one of the reasons why it's being phased in, to ensure that high-risk groups — those with chronic illness, first nations and communities that are most at risk if they are in fact infected with H1N1 — are dealt with first.

We're asking the public to cooperate with us on that, and we will continue to phase out the rollout this week. It includes children between the ages of six months and five years and health professionals. In the coming weeks we will have vaccinations available for the entire populace of British Columbia also.

A. Dix: The minister will know that many people, even people in those groups — I'm sure they've contacted him; I know they've contacted me — have been unable to get access to the vaccine in British Columbia. So how does it make sense?

The minister says no preferential access. There is preferential access at the Copeman clinic. You have to pay $3,900 to become a member, and then you get the vaccine. At a time when there is a shortage, at a time when the minister is rightly asking British Columbians to be patient, how does it make sense to provide some of that supply to a clinic where you have to pay to play?

Hon. K. Falcon: I know that the member opposite gets excited whenever there's a discussion of private clinics, but the member should know that licensed medical practitioners perform duties in private and public clinics right across the province of British Columbia.

What is happening is that they have been given an allotment. I understand it's exactly the same allotment provided to doctors' offices, which in most cases are also private, as the member should know. They are required to administer it in exactly the same way that it's being administered at public clinics, at private clinics, at doctors' offices, at hospitals — that is, to at-risk patient groups at no cost to the individuals. That's exactly what I expect them to do.

A. Dix: Except you have to spend $4,000 to get access to that lineup. The fact of the matter is…. There's a case in Ontario right now, and that clinic is being forced by the government of Ontario to provide access to everybody. The government of Ontario is currently conducting a review into that practice.
[ Page 1867 ]

The minister surely understands why people who are waiting…. The majority of health care workers aren't going to get access to the vaccine this week. The majority of children aren't going to get access to the vaccine this week. Yet privileged access is being given to members of a particular clinic. Does the minister not think there is something wrong with that picture?

Hon. K. Falcon: I would be careful with that, Member, because I am certain that the Copeman clinic also has clients that are suffering from compromised immune systems. They may have chronic health conditions that would necessitate a vaccination, just as doctors' offices right across the province or public health clinics also have patients that are dealing with chronic care issues.

As I said to the member, the distribution of vaccines is being undertaken under the auspices of our chief provincial health officer and the B.C. Centre for Disease Control. They are making sure that they are delivered fairly and appropriately across the licensed medical practitioner population, to be delivered for the benefit of those at risk first.

children and Family development
ministry budget priorities

M. Karagianis: I have a question for the Minister of Children and Family Development. How does hiring four new assistant deputy ministers fit with the government's insistence that they are cutting administration in order to deliver more to front-line services?

Hon. M. Polak: I'm pleased to respond to the member and advise her that this is part of our continuing transformation to ensure that we have the best practice possible and that we respond to many of the recommendations in the Hughes report around decentralization.

[1420]

I'm sure the member will be pleased to know that at the end of this shift in management, we will have no more management positions than we have now, and this entire change will be managed within the existing management and administrative salary budget.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

funding for
infant development program

M. Karagianis: Well, Dorothy Gazzola, whose daughter has Down syndrome, says that the infant development coordinators — a program this government just cut — were a godsend. She said that they were integral to the development of her special needs child. Yet this government cut those coordinators, insisting that it was a cut to administration.

So my question again to the minister: shouldn't the minister start at the top rather than going down and hurting those most vulnerable as the first line of attack?

Hon. M. Polak: The member well knows, because we've canvassed this before, that both the infant development program and the supported child development program continue uninterrupted, and that the administrative and coordinating functions that were represented by the provincial advisor's office will now be provided through the ministry regional offices — again, consistent with the multi-year plan that we are still continuing with to decentralize according to what Mr. Ted Hughes recommended in his well-known report.

J. Kwan: Well, that's not what the front-line workers say. April Kennedy at Sheway and her colleague work with young infants and pregnant women with substance misuse challenges. She and her co-worker provide developmental screenings, assessments and support to group parents. They rely heavily on the information provided to them by the advisers in the infant and Aboriginal Infant Development Program of B.C. so that the high-risk infants and their families have a better chance to succeed in life. Currently they have a caseload of 80 infants, and approximately 70 percent are identified as aboriginal.

To the minister again: is the chance to succeed for 80 high-risk children not worth $300,000?

Hon. M. Polak: I will advise the member that the infant development program maintains the same budget that it began with — $18 million this year, an all-time high — and supported child development has seen an increase in funding from $37.7 million in '04-05 to an all-time high now of $57 million this year.

These are hugely valuable programs, but they're part of a complex array of supports that we provide to children and families around the province. As we shift to decentralize, I want to remind the members of something that Mr. Hughes said in his report — decentralization "allows for a closer match of services and programs to the unique needs of widely dispersed…communities." And that's what we are going to provide.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: You know, from the front-line workers' point of view, they take a different point of view than this minister. They say that training and current information on relevant trends and changes in early intervention are an essential part of providing quality services to the heavy at-risk caseload.

The infant development office has helped over 80,000 parents at the cost of $300,000. That's $3.75 per family.
[ Page 1868 ]

Why is it that this government can find close to a million dollars to spend on government MLAs and their cabinet ministers for Olympic tickets? Why is it that this government can find…?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Take your seat for a second.

Members.

Continue, Member.

J. Kwan: Why is it that this government can find half a billion dollars for a retractable roof, and they cannot find $300,000 to support front-line workers working with high-risk infants of 18 months or younger?

[1425]

Hon. M. Polak: I will repeat this for the member. There are no reductions in service in infant development programs. There are no reductions in service in supported child development programs. In fact, both programs are being funded at an all-time high. There is no reduction in funding.

I'll tell you what really concerns me. I have been travelling around this province, and I have been talking to front-line workers. What really concerns me is that you have parents who are dealing with at-risk infants, with special needs children, and they're being told by opposition members that those programs are not going to be there. That is the last thing those families need to hear. It's absolutely untrue, and those members should be ashamed of themselves.

MINIMUM WAGE

R. Chouhan: My question is to the Minister of Labour. It has been eight years since B.C.'s lowest-paid workers had a raise. In fact, it was decreased from $8 an hour to $6 for the new workers. We now have the lowest minimum wage in the country.

To the Minister of Labour: how much longer do our lowest-paid workers have to wait? When will the government finally raise the minimum wage?

Hon. M. Coell: I'd like to take the member back eight years to when we were first elected and the NDP were defeated. So 60 percent of single parents were on welfare in this province, and 6 percent of people were earning minimum wage. Today that has been cut in half to 2.7 percent of the people on minimum wage.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. Coell: People earning minimum wage today pay no provincial tax, as they did when the NDP were in power, and the NDP voted against that. People earning minimum wage pay no MSP, and the NDP voted against that as well.

[End of question period.]

C. James: I rise to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

C. James: This petition has 1,597 signatures from the Kelowna area opposing the HST.

S. Herbert: I'd like to seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

S. Herbert: All right. This petition is 1,407 signatures from the good people of Vancouver–West End opposing the HST.

S. Hammell: I seek leave to introduce a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

S. Hammell: This petition is signed by 3,496 people from the wonderful city of Surrey, and I present this to the House, as they are opposing the implementation of the HST.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts; and in this chamber, continued second reading debate on Bill 14, Housing and Social Development Statutes Amendment Act.

[1430]

Second Reading of Bills

bill 14 — housing and
social development statutes
amendment act, 2009

continued)

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Housing closes debate.

Hon. R. Coleman: I've been sitting listening to the members opposite for some time, and I must admit that
[ Page 1869 ]
the NDP love affair with criminals continues. It's absolutely amazing to me, though, that their tough talk earlier this spring, when they wanted to go after gangs in British Columbia, has withered away to actually opposing a bill that says somebody with an indictable offence would not be given welfare.

The interesting thing about this: it wasn't always thus. As a matter of fact, I will read just one section of a regulation that existed from 1997 to the year 2000 in the province of British Columbia.

"A person is not eligible for assistance if a warrant for the arrest of that person or an adult dependent has been issued under the Immigration Act of Canada or under an enactment of Canada in relation to an indictable offence and the warrant has not been executed, and for the purposes of this section, indictable offence includes an offence that is deemed under section 34(1)(a) of the Interpretation Act of Canada to be an indictable offence."

That is part of a regulation that goes on for about two pages that the NDP had in place in 1997.

They stood over there on Thursday afternoon and berated the government for no consultation, not doing this thing publicly, going out for discussion in a house…. What did the NDP do? They brought that regulation in, in 1997, without any consultation, with no discussion with law enforcement, no discussion with communities. They went ahead and brought it into place. Subsequently, three years, they lost it to a Charter challenge because they didn't have the temerity to actually put in legislation.

But they'll sit here at the absolute height of hypocrisy and berate a law that does exactly what they did in 1997. How could it be okay to do the regulation haphazardly in 1997 and not okay to do a piece of legislation in 2009 that actually tries to meet the test to deal with this issue in our province?

Something switched. Somewhere along the way, the NDP have decided that some sexual predator from Montreal with a Canada-wide warrant coming into British Columbia should get social assistance, or some guy that's actually been assaulting someone — whether it be his ex-spouse or whatever the case may be — and has an outstanding warrant for an indictable offence should come to British Columbia. They'll wrap their arms around him and say: "Welcome to this province, and by the way, here's a cheque."

We don't agree with that, and actually, at one time they didn't either. They absolutely didn't either. But today they've changed their minds. Earlier this spring they wanted us to go after body armour. Earlier this spring they wanted to work with us on gangs. Now their policy is, "Well, we have a gang member committing an indictable offence, and they have an outstanding warrant. Give them welfare, because that's what we really believe in" — over there.

Yet the hypocrisy is that they already tried to do it themselves, and in so doing, they killed all the rest of the arguments that they had during second reading debate.

Sometimes you should look at your history. Sometimes you should look in the mirror.

As we go through that, we should also understand that a number of the other things that these folks were actually complaining about during second reading need to be put on the record so that we can actually have these people understand what's going on in B.C. versus when they were government in the 2000s.

[1435]

Let's deal with children and the LICO measurement, which is a measurement the members were all talking about. The children in poverty in British Columbia in 2000. Total population: 15.1 percent, the highest in B.C.'s history. Today: 11.1 percent, the lowest in B.C.'s history.

They don't want to talk about the fact that the percentage of children living in low income in British Columbia just in one year, in 2006 to 2007, declined by 29,000 children, a reduction of 21 percent. They don't want to talk about the fact that the incidence of children living in low income declined by 13 percent in 2007, the lowest since 1991. The proportion of families living in poverty is decreasing at a rate that is historical in British Columbia because of the policies of this government.

That LICO measurement doesn't measure rental assistance. It doesn't measure the other programs in government. It doesn't measure the lowest income tax rate for people making lower incomes. Even themselves, they say on their stuff: "Don't measure it by that."

So then I sat and listened to things about SROs, and I heard things about issues with the Downtown Eastside. I could go on for hours on what's been done in Vancouver for housing, in the Downtown Eastside and across B.C.

I could talk about the 7,000 people who were homeless 36 months ago, when our outreach teams have actually connected them to housing with supports across B.C. — and 80 percent of them are still housed today. I could talk about the fact that we've gone and bought 23 single-room-occupancy hotels, upgraded them and changed them into better housing and supports for people that are homeless with mental health and addictions on our street.

I could talk about the fact that we've taken the homeless shelters in British Columbia, almost tripled the amount in the last few years and taken the 24-7, 365 days a year and put in two other strategic moves with regards to cold-weather and extreme-weather strategies. But those I might actually save for my second reading debate under the Assistance to Shelter Act.

But I could not wait, frankly, to talk about the love affair with a criminal by the NDP and the hypocrisy of actually having a regulation that almost mirrors the legislation that's before the House and not once taking this to any consultation or whatever when they did it. What are we doing? In open debate in the Legislature of British Columbia, we're debating an act, and we'll go right through committee stage.
[ Page 1870 ]

It should be interesting, as each one of these things matches up, what the objection of the members opposite will be to, let's say, section 1(2) of their regulation: "under any other enactment in Canada in relation to an indictable offence…."

I suppose they'll get up and debate that and be opposed to it and call division on that when they actually get to it, because obviously, they didn't believe in it then, and they don't believe in it now. All they want to do is wrap their arms around the bad criminals of this country and say: "Come on guys. Come on down and get a cheque."

I close second reading debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I refer the bill to a Committee of the Whole House for the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 14, Housing and Social Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2009, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. B. Penner: I now call committee stage debate on Bill 17, Health Statutes (Residents' Bill of Rights) Amendment Act, 2009.

[1440]

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 17 — Health Statutes
(Residents' Bill of Rights)
Amendment Act, 2009

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 17; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:41 p.m.

Hon. I. Chong: I would like to introduce some of the staff with me today to begin with and then allow the members to ask some questions. With me today are Sue Bedford with our ministry, Christine Massey and Andrew Hazlewood, who's the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport.

With that, I'll entertain the questions from the members opposite.

On section 1.

J. Brar: Thanks to the minister and staff members. I hope we will go through committee stage in a meaningful way. Just to start the questions, my understanding is that section 1 talks about the display of the bill of rights at each care facility location. I would like to ask the minister whether the bill of rights will be displayed at one location or more than one location in each facility.

Hon. I. Chong: As I understand, the question is whether there would be the displaying of the bill of rights in several locations within that facility. The requirement is that it needs to be displayed in one location within that facility, in a prominent location that is highly visible and that people can see.

However, if a facility should choose to prominently display it on, say, every level of their facility or in a number of areas, they can do so. But they are required at this time to absolutely have it visible in one location within that facility.

J. Brar: What steps will be taken to make sure the rights of adult persons in care are known orally and in writing? We have already spoken about writing to personal care and their families and representatives. My question basically is around…. I understand the display of the bill of rights, which will be placed somewhere on the wall in an area which is visible to a majority of the residents. But orally or verbally, what method will be applied to make sure that all the instructions about the bill of rights are given to the residents?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I would expect the facilities to ensure that the bill of rights is displayed in an appropriate and prominent location and that on admission to the facility, the staff there would speak to the family members, to the residents, and advise them that there is in fact a bill of rights that they can refer to from time to time.

J. Brar: Will the bill of rights be displayed in more than one language, other than English?

[1445]

Hon. I. Chong: As the member will know, at present — and I know he had been at a briefing — the bill of rights will be displayed in English. However, we are prepared to monitor and see whether there are going to be significant requests for it to be translated into other languages. But at present it will be displayed in English at these facilities.

J. Brar: Madam Chair, there are facilities available out there where we have, as you know, a significant population of residents who speak languages other than English, such as Cantonese, Mandarin or Punjabi.

I'll give you one example. In Surrey we have a facility where probably more than 50 percent of the people speak South Asian languages. So in that sense, in my opinion, if we want to truly implement the bill of rights and make it known to the residents, it's important for the residents to have that access in different languages.
[ Page 1871 ]

My question again is: what will be the criteria to figure out or make a decision when the bill of rights will be made available other than in the English language, where we have a significant population of residents who speak that kind of language?

Hon. I. Chong: As I indicated, on admission the staff will be required to ensure that residents who are coming into the facility are aware there is a bill of rights or their family members are aware. They must communicate so in a way that it is understood that there is in fact a bill of rights.

J. Brar: My question was pretty simple: whether the bill of rights would be translated into languages other than English — such as Mandarin, Cantonese and Punjabi — where the majority of residents of a particular care facility speak that kind of language.

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated to the member, we will want to ensure that the facility operators do communicate this in a manner upon admission. It is not a legislated requirement that the bill of rights be provided in other languages. As I also indicated to the member, we would certainly consider that if in fact we find there is a need to provide the bill of rights in other languages. We would consider that, but currently the legislated requirement is that it is posted in English in a prominent location within the facility.

J. Brar: I would like to submit, though, that it's very important to the minister's office that we do make that option available under this bill. As I said before, if we want to totally implement this bill of rights, it's important that we translate the bill into languages that people can understand. So it's very important. I don't think if you give the option, that will serve the purpose which is actually the intent of this bill.

We are talking about the written bill of rights now. Similarly, I think the intent of this bill is that oral or verbal instructions will also be made available about the bill of rights to the residents if needed. So my question will be about that as well, because this bill says that oral instructions will be available.

How is the minister going to implement that, or how is the minister going to make sure that the instructions in different languages other than English are available in a facility where people can only speak those languages — for example, Cantonese, Mandarin or Punjabi?

Hon. I. Chong: I assure the member that I am very aware, living in a multicultural and diverse province such as I do, that there are certainly languages…. As he will know, our government has strived over a number of years to ensure that a number of publications are translated in a variety of languages.

Currently, as I have indicated, the legislated requirement is in fact in English. But we would be willing to work with the family councils, which will be established in these facilities, to see exactly the manner in which they would like to see a translated version posted.

[1450]

I'm not suggesting that it wouldn't occur. It's just that that option is available. We certainly would like to work with them. Also, the health authorities, as I understand it, have translators within the health authorities, and they work closely with the facility as required when there is a need for translation. So that will still be ongoing. That is still being made available. But most importantly, for residents and family members to know that a bill of rights is there so that they have understanding of what to expect in terms of a commitment to care.

J. Brar: When we talk about the translation, that matter could be taken care of very easily, because you need somebody to translate, and then, of course, you can display that on the wall. But when we talk about verbal instructions, that's a much bigger task for the care provider, if that's the expectation from them. Verbal instructions cannot be given to only translation. It has to be somebody talking to the resident in that situation.

My question is: how is the minister going to implement or make sure that the verbal instructions in this case — for example, in Punjabi, Cantonese or Mandarin — are available to the residents who can only speak that language if there is no staff in a particular care facility?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm just trying to ensure that I have the correct, I guess, response to the member's question. If he is referring to instructions on how to provide care, that would be what the health authorities are always and currently involved in, in terms of ensuring that the care facilities have the translators in place to instruct on the care that needs to be provided.

If we are talking, as this bill is, with regards to the residents bill of rights and to ensure that it is communicated properly, in that sense, then as I've indicated to him, it will be legislated that it is posted in English. However, we are willing to work with family councils and others to see whether some facilities wish them posted in a language other than English.

But if his questions are with respect to care and the care providers, that is the area of responsibility with the health authorities and health services.

J. Brar: I would like to probably make it more specific. We are talking about the bill of rights, not the care which is related to the health authority. We are talking about the bill of rights, and I would particularly read from section 1(b), which says here under (c.2): "make the rights of adult persons in care known, orally and in writing, to
[ Page 1872 ]
persons in care and their families and representatives." So that's what the bill says.

That's a good idea, but my question is: how is the minister going to implement that if, when it comes to oral language, the person who is receiving the message about the bill of rights — in that case, the resident of a facility — does not understand English and he or she needs to understand that in a language other than English? So how is the minister going to implement this particular subsection of the bill, particularly in the absence of a staff member who speaks that specific language?

[1455]

Hon. I. Chong: Again, it is important that the bill of rights is known, as the member has said — and I'm glad he agrees — orally and in writing to the persons in care, to their families and their representatives. We will ensure that if there is a translated version other than in English that is posted in a facility, it is an acceptable version, and we would be working with the care facility and their families to provide an alternate language, again, if needed.

If the member is concerned that those instructions or that communiqué is not being made available, I do have the ability, as well, to make an order about how to have that displayed within that facility.

J. Brar: I think there is some miscommunication going on here. There's no question about the display. I understand that piece. At this stage, this bill does not talk about this having to be translated into languages other than English — which, I think, it should be. I'm talking more about on the verbal side of it. Now, verbal instruction can only be provided by a living individual. That's my understanding to the residents.

So my question is…. In this one you're expecting the care providers to make sure the residents and their families and the representative know about the bill of rights, both in writing as well as in oral instructions. So you want to make sure of that. That's a good thing.

What I want to make sure of is that…. If in a facility there's no staff member who can speak, for example, a Punjabi language, and there are 30 percent of the residents who speak a Punjabi language, then who will give them oral instructions in that situation to make sure this bill of rights is known to those people, the people who can't read and write?

Hon. I. Chong: I thought, in a previous answer, that I had provided that to the member. Again, I will reiterate for him that the health authorities will be providing assistance in this way. They'll be monitoring the requirements. They have translators, and they can call them if needed to ensure that should there be a problem that arises that a family member or a resident is…. If they are determining that they are not feeling an adequate acknowledgment of the bill of rights, the health authorities should call for assistance — call the translators to make sure they are aware that there is a bill of rights.

The health authorities will continue to monitor them, and as I say, they have the staff complement. Especially in some of the larger densely populated areas, they have a number of translators that they can call upon.

J. Brar: So my understanding, then, is that when it comes to oral instructions being provided in languages other than English, that will be made available by the health authority. That's the expectation of the minister — from the health authority. But it will not be an expectation of the care facility itself to have people who will do that work.

Hon. I. Chong: The care facility is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the residents and family members are aware of the bill of rights. As part of their licensing, the health authorities will be monitoring to ensure that they do adhere to this new requirement. So that's one of the reasons why the health authorities, as I've indicated, will be monitoring this. It is going to be a requirement that they do adequately ensure that this takes place.

I'm sure that at the beginning there might be some confusion. If members feel that they have not been adequately provided with information, then we would expect that they would make that known to the care facility and that, therefore, the health authorities would be able to provide that assistance.

[1500]

As part of the licensing requirement, that care facility will be required to ensure that they do provide that information and avail themselves of those translators in these health authorities if they need to call upon them to do so.

J. Brar: I was more clear last time, and I'm as confused as I was last time after the answer I got from the minister.

To make it very simple, what I want to understand here is…. In my estimation, this would need additional work, whether by staff members of the care facilities or staff members of the health authority. I just want to figure out who in that situation will be responsible to provide verbal instructions — whether it's the staff of the health authority or staff of the care provider. That's my question. If the minister can clarify that, that will be helpful. We can move on to the next section then.

Hon. I. Chong: Again, as indicated, the care facilities are responsible. Their staff are responsible for providing this information. If needed, if they are not able to communicate this in a way that the resident or family members understand…. If they need assistance from a translator, then they can ask for help through the health authorities. But at the end of the day, the care facilities
[ Page 1873 ]
need to ensure that their residents or family members are aware.

That's what I said earlier — that on admission, they need to ensure that those members know. If they experience that that is not happening, then they will need to contact, as I say, the appropriate individuals, likely through the health authorities, to get the assistance to make sure that people are aware of this bill of rights. I hope that clarifies it for the member.

J. Brar: I understand that now. The primary responsibility basically, when it comes to the bill of rights and making it known to the residents, will remain with the care provider. That's what I understand from the response from the minister.

In that respect, will that mean that some, if not all, care facilities may be required to hire staff members particularly to deliver instructions to a multicultural community if that's the need of that particular care facility?

Hon. I. Chong: I would just like to again reiterate for the member. He indicated care providers would be responsible, but I want to say while they are providers, it's the care facility itself which is responsible for ensuring that the bill of rights is made known to its residents or to family members.

I do want to say that most facilities do in fact have a complement of staff who speak a variety of languages. But if a facility found that they did not have a staff member who could adequately translate or communicate the bill of rights, they can, as I say, contact the health authorities. They can search out an organization within the community to ask for someone to come along and translate. They can choose whatever variety of ways to ensure that the resident or the family member is aware.

[1505]

I'm not able to suggest that every care facility is going to hire new people. It will depend on the circumstance. Particularly in the Lower Mainland, my understanding is that many of the care facilities do have staff on hand who speak a variety of languages. But for those other remote areas that don't, generally there will be a community organization that will have translators, as well, who could provide that. Even family members may feel that they are comfortable and adequately trained to be able to translate for the benefit of the resident or family member coming into that facility.

J. Brar: My understanding, then, is that the key here is that it is the primary responsibility of the care provider to make sure that languages other than English are available if that's the need, based on the population of the care facility.

The primary responsibility remains with the care provider, but they can seek help from the health authority, if that's the case, or they can hire somebody to get that work done, or they can get help from family members and all that.

My point was that there could be a case where they need to hire somebody to get that work done, because otherwise this bill of rights will not be implemented if that capacity is not available in that facility.

Having said that, I will move on to subsection (c)(1.2), where it states: "The minister may make orders for the purposes of subsection (1)(c.1)(ii)." This is a bit confusing for me. I want to ask a very simple question on that one. What kind of orders can the minister make for the subsections I just listed?

Hon. I. Chong: Perhaps the best way to describe this is by way of example. If we found that a facility was not posting the bill of rights in a prominent location or that the font is so small that nobody can read it…. As you know, we're all getting older and need to be able to have it prominently displayed and also be able to read it. If it's not being posted appropriately in that manner, as the minister, we have the ability to make an order to ensure that those are corrected.

I trust that that's a good enough example for the member as to how the minister would make an order to ensure that the bill of rights is well known to those in that facility.

J. Brar: I'll move on — I just want to make sure I'm doing the right thing here — to section 2.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

J. Brar: Under section 2(a), it says: "defining a word or expression used but not defined in this Act." I just want to ask: what is the purpose of this amendment? What is the end goal the minister wants to achieve by amending this particular clause?

Hon. I. Chong: From time to time, I suppose, there are words or expressions that may be used which may appear ambiguous. What this section merely does is provide an opportunity for that word to be clarified so that there is no misunderstanding, so that there is no ambiguity.

[1510]

This section provides the ability, by regulation, for us to make that clarification if we find that there is a word or an expression being confused or being used in ambiguous ways.

J. Brar: Can the minister give any example of those words or expressions?

Hon. I. Chong: What this section allows is essentially what is permitted through other pieces of legislation
[ Page 1874 ]
as well — that where you find a word or an expression within the legislation that is confusing, that requires clarification or is ambiguous, for then, by regulation, to make it more clear.

Because we have not yet implemented the bill, we don't know whether there is a word or expression in here that can be misinterpreted or that can be used in an ambiguous way. I can't give the member an example, because if there was an example, we wouldn't be putting it in. We would clarify it now.

This provides a section for us to…. Upon its implementation, if we were to find that that were to take place, we can by regulation, therefore, make the necessary change to clarify it. It's dealing with a potential circumstance, if that should occur. There is, again, no example I can point to currently, because we don't know how people will be interpreting some of the words and expressions within this.

J. Brar: I will move on to subsection (b) of section 2. Under that there are three different things that are mentioned here. The first one under (a) is: "designate a class of premises." Can the minister define what it means by designating a class of premises?

Hon. I. Chong: This would allow us, if required, to designate a class of premises and, potentially, a new class of premises. Currently, what we're considering is a class of premises such as the long-term care facilities, a class of premises such as the community living group homes, a class of premises such as the mental health and addiction facilities.

Should a new class of premises emerge in the future, again, it would allow us to designate that grouping as that class of premises. It deals with those that currently exist and anticipates, perhaps, adding and ensuring that that new class of premises would be captured by this legislation.

[1515]

J. Brar: Can the minister provide a list of premises that this bill of rights will be applicable to?

Hon. I. Chong: The examples I gave to the member were examples of the class of premises that we're dealing with.

Just to be very specific, the bill of rights will apply to all residential care facilities licensed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act, the Residential Care Regulation — so including the long-term care, as I've indicated, mental health and substance abuse, community living, hospice, acquired injury. It will also apply to residential care facilities regulated under the Hospital Act, typically referred to as private hospitals or extended care facilities.

I'm presuming that's what the member is looking for, as opposed to a list of every single facility throughout the entire province of British Columbia. I hope that provides clarification.

J. Brar: Is there any exemption to any premises which fall under the community living care act which is not part of this bill?

Hon. I. Chong: We have not considered or provided for any exemptions based on the list that I just read to the member. Those who are licensed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act or the Hospital Act in particular will be required to post the residents bill of rights.

J. Brar: My simple question is: why not apply this bill of rights to assisted-living facilities?

Hon. I. Chong: As I understand it, the member originally asked if there are exemptions. I indicated there are no exemptions. The follow-up question, I guess, refers now to why it doesn't include those who are living in assisted living.

The bill of rights does not apply to assisted living because the persons who reside in assisted living are able to make decisions on their own behalf and do not need the extensive protections that are provided to persons with complex care needs. Those facilities, as I've indicated, are generally for those persons who will have complex care needs. That's why the bill of rights applies to those facilities.

J. Brar: If we believe that the intent of this bill is to improve the care for seniors…. There are a lot of people who are receiving home care from the government. I think it will make sense to include those people as well, if possible. So my question to the minister will be: why not include people who are receiving home care? Why can't we make them part of this bill of rights or a similar bill of rights?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I indicated the bill of rights applies to all residential care facilities licensed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act, the Residential Care Regulation, as well as the Hospital Act. Those facilities which are classified as assisted living are not licensed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act. That's where we had made the determination as to where the bill of rights would apply.

[1520]

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

J. Brar: This is actually the major line of questions I would like to ask, because this section has that list of the so-called bill of rights which has been developed, probably
[ Page 1875 ]
keeping in mind that this will improve care for the seniors in care facilities. My first question will be why the minister thought it was important to develop this bill of rights and make it available to seniors.

Hon. I. Chong: First, I do want to say that the bill of rights will not be applying just to seniors. It will be for all those adults. We actually did take a look at that. I think the original thought was that it would be applied just to seniors. Recognizing that some of these facilities will have persons who are adults but not classified as seniors, we created this residents bill of rights to clarify the rights of adults when they move into residential care, as the facility becomes their home either temporarily or permanently.

Therefore, the bill of rights is designed to help ensure that licence holders, the person in care and the family members are all made aware of that standard set of rights. That goes to the heart of why the bill of rights was created and established.

J. Brar: My understanding is that this whole list in the bill of rights is not a new creation. It is something that already existed in different places. The purpose here is to put together one consolidated list of those rights so that it can be made available to the people living in different facilities. Is that what we're doing here, or is this a completely new creation done by the ministry?

Hon. I. Chong: The bill of rights actually strengthens provisions for persons in care. Actually, it's complementary to existing provisions. I want to clarify that we do have, as the member indicated, protections currently for residents of facilities licensed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act and under the Hospital Act. The introduction of the bills of rights is not merely a repeat of that but actually, as I say, strengthens that.

Let me provide for the member, in a number of areas, what the bill of rights will do in addition to the protections that are currently there. It articulates government's commitment to care and to individualized care plans for each resident not necessarily in place now. It enshrines a right of participation in the development of their care plan or, where residents are unable to participate, the right of their family or representative to participate.

It promotes transparency by requiring that the bill of rights is posted prominently for all residents, family members and visitors to a facility to see. It promotes accountability to residents and family members by requiring the posting of the most recent routine inspection report.

It also creates a plain-language guide to the rights of persons in care. Most residents and their family members are not aware of the specific and detailed legislative requirements in the Community Care and Assisted Living Act and the Hospital Act, which are written in a more legal drafting style.

These are some of the enhanced protections and rights that members can come to know and understand — and their family members, when they make a choice of moving a member into one of these facilities in which the bill of rights will now be posted.

[1525]

J. Brar: For any new bill, either somebody initiated that bill from within the ministry to improve or streamline the system — that's understandable, and that's a good step if somebody does it — or there's a demand from outside, from the public, for some sort of change or amendment or for the new creation of any bill.

My question was: is this bill of rights in front of us the outcome of somebody asking from outside, or is this the outcome of the ministry staff just looking into the existing bill of rights, which is probably at different places, to streamline the system, putting all those things together in one place?

Hon. I. Chong: The member will probably know that the act was renewed about four years ago, and on October 1, 2009, this year, we also renewed some of the Residential Care Regulation. It made sense that we were also moving forward, as I say, to build upon existing protections and moving towards the bill of rights.

If the member is suggesting that the staff and the ministry were just putting together a bill of rights without regard to a number of other events that were taking place, I want to assure him that it was a constant review of what we have in place. As I say, with the renewal of the act and the renewal of the regulations, it made sense to move forward to a residents bill of rights.

J. Brar: Moving on to the next level, can the minister provide us a list of stakeholders that were consulted, specifically for the purpose of this bill, to ensure that the list in the bill of rights is comprehensive and inclusive?

Hon. I. Chong: Government did hold a number of extensive public consultations from fall 2004 through to January 2005 on the Residential Care Regulation, and that's one of the reasons why a number were introduced just this past October. They were held with a number of organizations and stakeholders.

The residential care regulations, therefore, are compatible with the residents bill of rights, which is one of the reasons why we did not have a separate consultation, if that's what the member is referring to, on the bill of rights.

As he well knows, we had promises in our election platform. As well, it was reiterated in the Speech from the Throne just this fall. It certainly was very well known and publicly known.

We also, over a number of years, have had phone calls with organizations that include the B.C. Care Providers
[ Page 1876 ]
Association and the Denominational Health Association. They, too, were very clearly aware of the bill. Perhaps those organizations are two of the larger organizations concerned and wanting to have input and awareness of what was coming forward.

J. Brar: If I understand that correctly, there were no specific consulting efforts made for this particular bill of rights. Is that true?

Hon. I. Chong: There was no additional consultation made, if that's what the member is referring to, specifically for the residents bill of rights, because government had held an extensive consultation between fall 2004 to early 2005 on the Residential Care Regulation with organizations and stakeholders.

[1530]

For that reason, that consultation really led to the compatibility of what was being proposed in the bill of rights. So no separate consultation, I agree. However, there had been extensive consultation leading up to the bill of rights.

J. Brar: There is quite a bit of questioning on this one. My understanding, then, is that of all the stakeholders, whether it's seniors or care providers or other facilities…. Nobody was specifically asked to give input or feedback for this bill of rights. That's my understanding. If that's wrong, I would like to ask the minister to clarify that.

I understand the minister is talking about the historic consultation done with the stakeholders, but that was for a different purpose. We are talking here about a particular bill of rights, and I think that question needs to be asked to the stakeholders. If that question was specifically asked previously, I would like to know that. If not asked, then I would like to know why the minister chose not to specifically consult the stakeholders — particularly, in this situation, the residents and care providers — to give input, to make sure that this bill of rights is complete, inclusive and comprehensive.

Hon. I. Chong: There were approximately 1,200 people who did participate in the consultation on the changes to the regulations. Because the regulations are compatible with the bill of rights, there was no separate consultation process that was taken.

The member is asking: "Was there a separate consultation?" I've advised that there was not. He asked: "Why not?" It's because the consultation that took place earlier was such that they were…. The consultation that took place on the regulations ensured that they were also compatible with the rights that we are introducing now.

J. Brar: What will the minister then say to those stakeholders who now think that they should have been consulted and they could have given good input into the process? What will be the response of the minister to those people who are very, very involved in this process, either care providers or seniors or family members or staff members — all those people? What would the minister say to those who say, "We should have been consulted specifically about this bill of rights. We could have made it better or more effective" — to basically do the thing which the minister would like to do by implementing this bill of rights?

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, because of the extensive consultation that took place and because that consultation complements the bill of rights, we did not feel that there was a need for a separate consultation.

I acknowledge that the member may feel that further consultation can take place or should take place. So let me just say this to the member. If there is something that is fundamentally missing from the bill of rights that is required or should be required to be included, we are always willing to hear from stakeholders and organizations. But we do believe that the bill of rights does complement a number of the consultations that took place.

[1535]

The bill has been introduced. It's been out in the public domain now for, I think, just over a week, and we've not heard from any groups that say that something that was fundamental should have been included in the bill of rights.

Again, we're always willing to listen. This is, as I say, a piece of legislation that allows us to build upon a number of protections that we currently have in the Community Care and Assisted Living Act and in the Hospital Act. I believe it's a good step forward. Certainly, I'm sure we'll hear from others if, in fact, more should be considered in the future.

I would not have wanted to hold up putting something like this in place in order to, as I say, provide this complementary piece of legislation for the other rights that are currently available.

J. Brar: You know, we're talking about the bill, which is going to be implemented pretty soon — in the near future. There are people out there, by the way…. As I said, I've spoken to seniors. I've spoken to some staff members. I've spoken to care providers. I have spoken to a lot of stakeholders out there. A lot of people are not happy, because they think they were never asked about this bill. That is a very genuine concern of these people, and I think that that step should have been taken before putting together this bill of rights.

The minister is suggesting now that the minister is willing to listen. I appreciate that. But what will that mean after you basically pass this bill and implement this on those people? The consultation won't mean anything until the minister brings this bill back to this House and makes the amendments. So that's a long process to go, and that's not the right process to follow.
[ Page 1877 ]

I would just leave a note on this particular part that it was a mistake not to consult the key stakeholders for this particular bill — which are the people in care, care providers, staff members and family members — because this is for them. They should have been given the opportunity to ask as to what they want to improve, if we really want to improve the care for the people in care facilities.

I will move on to a specific question. Section 3 says: "An adult person in care has the right to a care plan developed…." My question to the minister will be if the minister can tell us who will be responsible to develop the care plan.

Hon. I. Chong: The facility has responsibility for developing the care plan for the resident, for the individual, with that individual. If that individual wishes to include family members, they can do so, but primarily the care facility, or the facility in cooperation and working with the resident, will develop the care plan that best suits their needs.

J. Brar: So my understanding is that this will be a responsibility of the staff members, to be more specific. The staff members of a particular facility will be responsible to work with the resident in care and talk about developing an individualized care plan.

Is that the true or right definition of developing an individualized care plan — that it will be the responsibility of staff members working with the individual residents to develop individualized care plans?

[1540]

Hon. I. Chong: I want to be clear. It's not just the staff at the facility. It's the facility staff that have the clinical expertise to develop these individualized care plans. That is currently what is, in fact, taking place now.

J. Brar: Thanks for the clarification, to the minister. So my understanding then is that they will develop the plan, and they will also be responsible to implement the plan step by step.

Hon. I. Chong: Once the individualized care plan has been developed and agreed to, then that plan provides direction to all relevant staff to meet the needs of that person in care. So it will have been developed, it will have been agreed to, and then the plan is implemented. Direction is given to staff for them to implement it based on that agreement of that care plan.

J. Brar: Just to recapture that. I just want to make sure that at the end of the day, once it is implemented, there will be some guidelines for the care facility people, which will also serve as guidelines to the residents, who will be working with the staff members or the care facility for those individualized plans.

So it will be developed by the staff members. There will be some input from the health authorities, and they will also be responsible to implement that developed plan step by step later on.

My next question will be…. In each care facility there are residents who may come from different cultural backgrounds or diverse cultural backgrounds, and there may be staff members who come from different cultural backgrounds as well. Will the residents of a particular care facility have a choice to work with somebody they feel comfortable with?

Hon. I. Chong: I want to say, first and foremost, that care plans, once established, developed or determined, don't stay in that form forever. Care plans can be reviewed regularly as the needs of the person in care change. So there is that opportunity.

It is up to the facilities to work with the residents and family members to deliver the best possible care for those residents and to recognize the unique needs of residents. There is not one approach that can be taken across the board. Every facility will, based on the residents' needs, develop their plans and ensure that they're followed through in that way.

[1545]

I also want to assure the member that licensing also monitors the concerns of residents' needs if they're not being met. In fact, licensing also will monitor the care plans through random selection, take a look at care plans again to ensure that they are considering in some cases unique needs of some of their residents. I hope that provides some assurance to the member.

J. Brar: What will be the caseload on one staff member to ensure that this is done properly, meeting "unique abilities" as listed in this bill — "physical, social and emotional needs, and cultural and spiritual preferences"?

Hon. I. Chong: I just want to be clear here that the bill of rights does not impose staffing requirements. For facilities regulated under the Residential Care Regulation, section 42, a licensee must ensure that, at all times, the employees on duty are sufficient in numbers, training and experience to meet the needs of the persons in care and to provide assistance to people with the activities of daily living. So we are not setting staffing requirements. That is not what the bill of rights is designed to do.

J. Brar: I think the expectation of the minister will be for this bill of rights — particularly as we're talking about developing an individualized plan for the person in care — that the plan is developed, then that plan is implemented, and that the plan is monitored.

As the minister said, somebody is going to monitor the plan. To do that, there must be sufficient capacity. So what will be the expectation from the minister as to what
[ Page 1878 ]
is a reasonable number of residents for the caseload for one staff member to make sure this is done appropriately to the satisfaction of the minister?

Hon. I. Chong: I could, perhaps, seek a bit of clarification. I'm wanting to determine if he is asking about the staff requirement and the caseload — what he's indicated — that would be required to deal with the implementation of the bill of rights, which is, as I say, requiring certain clarifications for family members as well as for the residents in the care, or whether he's speaking specifically to the staff complement that is required in each facility for those residents in those facilities.

I'm not clear, when he's referring to caseload, what he's referring to. Is it the provision of the health care or is it the caseload for the provision of the bill of rights?

J. Brar: We're talking about only one thing here. I just want to clarify that again. We're talking about the bill of rights here, and I don't think we're talking about anything else. We're talking about the bill of rights. We're talking about a particular item under the list of the bill of rights, and that is to develop an individualized plan for each person in care.

[1550]

My question is very simple. The minister must have some standards, at least, or some expectation from the care facilities as to what the caseload is that is reasonable for a staff member to get this additional work done. That is my question.

There may be 50 people in one facility and five staff members. Is that the right number to make sure that the individualized plan is developed and implemented and that somebody is there to monitor? I am asking about the caseload to develop the individualized plan, to implement it and to monitor it. What is the standard caseload that the minister will be satisfied with?

Hon. I. Chong: As I indicated earlier, there are individualized plans that currently take place, which were already in place prior to the introduction of the bill of rights. The bill of rights, as I say, is a clarification as to what family members and residents can expect, so it's not providing or requiring, necessarily, additional work.

However, the staff-to-client ratio will vary depending on the needs of the residents and will be up to the facility. If the member is looking for an average, it's very difficult, because every facility is different. There are more complex needs in some facilities than in others.

The care plans are being developed, have been in the past and will continue to do so.

J. Brar: My understanding, then, is that the minister, at this point in time, is not sure as to what is an acceptable level of caseload from a particular care facility to make sure that this is implemented to the satisfaction of the minister.

With that, I will move on to the next bill of rights, another line there, which says: "to have access to a fair and effective process to express concerns, make complaints or resolve disputes…." Who will ensure access to a fair and effective process to express concerns, make complaints and resolve disputes? Who is responsible for that?

Hon. I. Chong: As would be expected, the facility would be primarily responsible to develop the means to resolve disputes.

J. Brar: My understanding on this one, as well, is that this will be a task the staff members will be responsible to deliver once this bill is passed and subsequently implemented.

The next line there is: "to be informed as to how to make a complaint" to an outside authority. Who will be responsible to inform about this particular right? Will it be staff members or somebody else?

[1555]

Hon. I. Chong: I wanted to make sure that I had all the information for the member. I apologize for the delay.

There are licensing officers who currently have a range of tools that they can use to ensure compliance with the regulations and legislation. The facility will be required to provide information to residents or their family members as to how they can make a complaint outside the facility. That's why the bill of rights states, in plain language, that a resident must be informed.

If a resident or a family member wishes to make a complaint, they have the right to be informed on how to do so. If that should not happen, then the licensing officer, who has, as I say, a range of tools to ensure that there is compliance, could ensure that they come into the situation. Also, if they have to issue any action on the facility operator's licence, which can involve things like suspension or cancellation, that could take place.

I would expect that all facility operators will ensure that they have people on staff and even — again, upon admission — informing the residents and the family members, should there be a complaint, as to how to make that complaint outside of the facility.

J. Brar: This is a little strange to me that the care facility will inform the people in care about making complaints against them to an outside authority. That is a bit strange to me.

[1600]

Compliance is a big issue here. Accountability is a big issue here. I just want to get an understanding from the minister as to how this particular right will be enforced, because as I see it, there is a contradiction in this right.
[ Page 1879 ]
Somebody is telling somebody about making a complaint against the person who is telling them.

How do you enforce this kind of thing? People in care won't know about this — where to go — so how do you enforce this? Is somebody going to go into a care facility and ask them if this is happening or not happening?

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, informing residents and family members that they have a right to make a complaint to an authority outside of the facility is embedded right in the bill of rights. This is part of the obligation. This is part of the bill of rights. As I say, family members and residents will be made aware, or should be made aware, on admission that these are their rights.

Also, there are inspections that will be carried out. Also, the inspection information or reports will be posted. If there is a violation of that, we have our licensing officers, who will then be able to take direct action if in fact they feel that they are not living up to the requirements of the residential care regulations.

J. Brar: I do have concerns about this particular right — as to how to enforce it. I will certainly suggest thinking through what is the best way to enforce this particular right if we want to really give the rights to the people in care. As I said before, it looks a bit contradictory that care facility providers will inform them to make complaints against them to an outside authority. There must be some system to make sure that happens.

Having said that, I will move on. They also have the right to have ready access to "laws, rules and policies affecting a service provided to him or her" and access to the most recent routine inspection report of the facility. Again, my question will be: who will be responsible to provide information or photocopies of laws, rules and policies affecting services provided to him or her and access to the most recent routine inspection report of the facility?

Hon. I. Chong: The facility is responsible.

J. Brar: This will, of course, require staff members to make photocopies and talk to the people. My point here is that this will be additional work for the staff members. That's what I'm trying to understand. That's my understanding. If it's the responsibility of the care facility, these are, at the end of the day, tasks to be performed by the staff members of that facility.

Another right they will have is to be informed in advance of all charges that must be paid to the facility and a written statement for anything paid out in advance. Who will be responsible to make sure that this happens?

Hon. I. Chong: The facility, upon admission.

J. Brar: Once again, I would like to make a note that it will, of course, be additional work for the staff members of the facility to make sure that this happens and that this is done the right way, to make sure that the bill of rights is implemented.

[1605]

Another right they have is to have a family representative equally informed of these matters of transparency and accountability. This also, in my estimation, is additional work for the staff members. I understand that this will be done by staff members. I just want the minister to confirm that.

Hon. I. Chong: I just want to clarify for the member, because implying…. I don't know if he's meaning to imply that there will be a substantial amount of work the staff have to do. This is about having ready access to copies of laws — not immediate access but ready access. Yes, staff can provide copies. They can show the website. They can provide information. It's not necessarily going to be more onerous on behalf of the staff and the work they do.

I just want to ensure the member is aware that this is about providing information. This is about allowing family members as well as the residents know what they can view in terms of inspection reports and what is available to them — but certainly not to say that staff drop everything and have that immediately made available.

I don't expect that there should be required onerous amounts of time that the staff will have to spend to provide this information to those residents.

J. Brar: I understand that this is a requirement. I just want to make sure we're on the same page. This has to be done by somebody, and this whole list of new rights is an additional responsibility for staff members.

If you look at their job description, this will be a new list of things to do. That's my point. If the minister differs with that, I would like to hear that.

These are all tasks, these are all responsibilities, for the staff members to perform if the minister wants to implement this bill of rights.

The next one says respect of lifestyle and choices, including pursuit of "social, cultural, religious…and other interests." So my question here will be…. There are, as I said before, facilities where we have multicultural residents in the care facility who come from different backgrounds, have different faiths, different values, different languages and all that. There are people or a group of people in some care facilities who may wish to have their private prayer, for example. They will, of course, need a space to do that.

Will this mean — because this bill clearly states that they have to respect lifestyle and choices, including pursuit of social, cultural, religious and other interests — that the care providers, the care facility people, have to provide them a room or space, if that's the need, for the
[ Page 1880 ]
people or group of people who want to do a collective prayer in that facility?

Hon. I. Chong: I don't anticipate that there would be additional changes to accommodate this particular section.

As we know, many facilities now already have space within the facility, communal space in particular, which provides for opportunities for individuals to, as I say, pursue their social, cultural, religious, spiritual or other interests as well as to be supported in those ways.

[1610]

I don't see this section as adding additional burden on the facility — just to know that the resident has the right to have that respected and supported.

J. Brar: So just to clarify. Is the minister saying there's absolutely no additional expectation to implement this particular right when it comes to the space availability?

Hon. I. Chong: I don't expect that to be the case. If a facility, in reviewing these rights, deemed that they have not had adequate space in the past and may wish to provide adequate space or a communal space, certainly they may wish to do so in order to accommodate this section of the act. But to suggest that all facilities in the province would have to suddenly make modifications or changes I think would be an inaccurate reflection of what is now taking place.

We are, as I say, enshrining certain rights in a bill of rights so that residents know what they can expect and, also, what the facility operator should expect to provide. That should allow both parties to move forward to ensure that those rights are adhered to.

Again, I don't believe that a whole new structure needs to be set up to accommodate this section. I do believe currently there are a number of facilities, particularly in the Lower Mainland, that are already accommodating this. Again, the bill of rights really clarifies what the expectation of residents and family members are.

J. Brar: The simple answer to my question could have been no. But the minister is not absolutely certain about this particular question that I have asked — whether there will be an additional space requirement for people to implement this particular right, giving them the option to practise their faith or religion, as I said before. So I will take it, as I understand, that the majority of the care facilities may have the meeting rooms or spaces available, but unless the minister says absolutely not, there's a possibility that this particular right may require additional space or room for the people to practise their individual cultural and religious needs.

The other right they have in this list is protection from abuse or neglect. My understanding is that in order to protect seniors and vulnerable residents from abuse or neglect, care providers need to ensure an appropriate level and well-trained staffing in their care facility. Otherwise this will happen.

My question to the minister is: will the minister agree with my observation on this? And can the minister tell us whether the care providers in the province of British Columbia have an appropriate level and well-trained staffing available?

Hon. I. Chong: I believe this goes back to an area we canvassed earlier, and that is the individual needs of persons in care and their care plans. Their care plans will have to identify the needs of that resident and the family members as well being aware of what the needs of that particular resident will be. The facility operator will know what they need to have in place to implement that care plan and to provide the care of that individual.

[1615]

J. Brar: Now, this is my take on this bill. In order to truly enforce the bill of rights, this is a huge undertaking — a huge undertaking, I would repeat — for the care providers, and it will require a lot of additional staffing hours and probably additional staff members and additional training for staff members.

If you read this whole list…. I will probably just recap a few of the additional responsibilities staff members will have. People in care will have the right to have an individualized care plan, which somebody has to develop, somebody has to implement, and somebody has to monitor. Then they will have the right to access "a fair and effective process to express concerns, make complaints or resolve disputes." Somebody has to make photocopies. Somebody has to work with them to resolve disputes. That is a time-consuming process as well.

They will have the right to be informed as to how to make a complaint to an outside authority. That is also a new task. They have to go to the person and provide them with all the information — phone numbers, the contact person, their name and all that.

They will have the right to have ready access to laws, rules and policies about the services they are receiving. So this will need, of course, somebody who understands the law to tell them, to make photocopies and to make those photocopies available. If they need to translate that into a different language, somebody needs to get that work done. So that will be an additional responsibility and will need additional staffing.

They will have the right to be informed in advance about all charges that must be paid to the facility and a written statement for anything paid out in advance. So this will also require, of course, additional staffing hours.

I just mentioned a few of them. There are 15 different items on the bill of rights. This all will require additional staffing and training. This is a kind of rewriting of the job description of the staff members.
[ Page 1881 ]

Having said that, can the minister tell us if the minister has done any assessment to implement this bill of rights as to how many additional hours of staffing will be required to develop and implement all the requirements listed in this bill for the staff members?

Hon. I. Chong: I think the member may be missing the point somewhat. The rights are compatible with regulations that exist and, in fact, build upon some of the existing protections for residents of facilities that are licensed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act and under the Hospital Act.

What is occurring is that most residents and family members are just not aware of those specific and detailed legislative requirements under those two acts. Even if they were aware, they don't often refer to them because they are written in some legalese. Only lawyers would spend the time to go through and understand specifically what they refer to.

So the bill of rights allows us to bring those rights, those legislative requirements, into a more plain-language document so that family members and residents are aware. As I say, a number of these rights do currently exist. People just aren't aware. This is one of the reasons why it's important to let people know, especially their family members.

We don't anticipate that there will be a greatly increased workload. Many of the facilities in the Lower Mainland already do have a bill of rights — perhaps not written in this way but, I guess, a code of conduct that they adhere to as a best practice. So again, we do not anticipate that there will be additional staffing workloads, as the member appears to indicate, because these are requirements that are legislated.

The bill of rights ensures more clarity and more transparency so that members of their families, and the residents in particular, are aware of what they can expect.

[1620]

I hope that provides some assurance to the member and to all those who may be paying attention to the debates that it's not that things are not already in place. Some people and family members are not aware, and the bill of rights attempts to correct that unawareness, if I can use that word — to make sure that the awareness, in fact, is there.

J. Brar: I am a little confused about the response I heard from the minister. I asked at the very beginning: is this bill of rights a new creation, a new list of rights, or is it already happening and the minister is trying to streamline the process?

The minister said at that time that there are a few things happening at this point in time, but there are new lists of things — part of this bill of rights. That's what the word was. There were additional or new lists of things which are the expectations of the minister of the care facilities.

Having said that, there's a huge list, if we look at that, which will be expected of staff members or care facilities to implement this particular bill of rights. I'm saying this. I've spoken to the care providers. I've spoken to seniors and other people in care facilities. I've spoken to staff members. I've spoken to care facility people. All of them say one thing consistently, very consistently: they don't have sufficient staffing to implement all of this.

They're also saying that this is additional work for them. This is additional work, for any person who can understand that very clearly. This is a new list of expectations by the minister to improve, so-called, the care of the people in care.

Having said that, my simple question to the minister will be: is the minister saying that this will not require any additional staffing hours to implement this bill?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm sure the member is not wanting to put words in my mouth. I did not say that that was not going to be the case. I said that we did not anticipate that there would, necessarily, be additional workload that would require additional staff.

Certainly, if some facilities felt that they would require additional staff or to redirect staffing requirements, they may do so. It will vary depending on the needs of persons in care and will vary from facility to facility.

What I also said earlier was that this bill of rights builds upon a number of existing protections that exist through the two acts that I've mentioned a number of times already. I've also indicated that it provides, as I say…. Upon building on that, it's not just about bringing all those existing protections together but allows for things such as informing the residents and family members that they have a right to make a complaint, as the member has already indicated. Some people were not aware that that is an important right to have.

It's about requiring facilities to make families and representatives aware that there is a bill of rights. Again, that's not going to require that much more work — just telling people upon admission that they now have a bill of rights that are available. So for the member to suggest that there are going to be onerous responsibilities that will be required of the staff, that more time will be taken away from the care they provide in order to implement the bill of rights, I think, would be a mischaracterization.

What I do believe is that if facilities currently are not able to provide this information, they will need to find out how they can, because the bill of rights, as I say, needs to be posted in a prominent location. Residents and family members need to be made aware of what those rights are upon admission.

Certainly, some of the implementation process here will be different from facility to facility. I'm not going to suggest that every facility is going to have to hire additional staff. But I'm not going to suggest, either, that
[ Page 1882 ]
some facilities are not going to redeploy or find a way to facilitate this in a manner that suits and best meets the needs of their residents.

[1625]

J. Brar: Has the minister done any assessment to figure out whether to implement this bill of rights will require additional staffing or not? If the minister has done, the minister should present that assessment.

Hon. I. Chong: We have not specifically done any, I guess, assessments and calculations for what the member is suggesting.

However, in our consultations and in our discussions with the personnel and staff who deliver a variety of the funding programs, in our discussions with the service provider organizations, they have not indicated to us that they would not be able to adhere to the bill of rights or that it would be difficult to meet in any way. We have not heard that this would be a problem.

The member suggests that it would be. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding of what requirements there would be. But with all the discussions that ministry staff have had with those who are reviewing the bill of rights and how to ensure that family members and residents are aware, they have not indicated that it would be difficult to meet the requirements of the bill of rights.

J. Brar: I would like to put that on the record. The minister hasn't done any consultation with any stakeholders.

As I said before, I've spoken to the care providers. I've spoken to the staff members. I've spoken to seniors and persons in care. They're all saying one thing: that in order to implement this bill of rights, there will be additional staffing and training required. They're all saying that.

The minister hasn't done any consultation. The minister hasn't done any assessment as to whether there will be a requirement of additional staffing or not. In the absence of both things, the minister still continues to say that there will not be any additional requirement for staff members or any expectation for additional staffing on this one.

I am saying, on the basis of information I got from the stakeholders and from a commonsense point of view, that this is a huge list of new responsibilities for staff members and that there will be additional staffing required and, probably, additional training for staff members needed. I'm just saying that.

[1630]

I would like to also read this for the record. "A newly released Statistics Canada report reveals that B.C. provided the lowest number of paid care hours in residential facilities of any Canadian province during 2007 and '08. This came to light when many seniors remained in hospitals waiting for a bed in a residential care home setting as the Liberal government imposed a fee increase on residential care and as health authorities cut many programs in place to support seniors health.

Despite what the Liberals promised our seniors, they have suffered under the regime of this government. In 2007 and '08, B.C. had the lowest rate of paid hours per resident-day in residential care facilities in Canada, at 4.2 hours per day. This is compared to a national average of 4.8 hours per day and much higher rates in other western provinces: 5.5 hours in Alberta, 6.2 hours in Saskatchewan and 5.7 hours in Manitoba.

Clearly, B.C. provided the lowest number of paid care hours in residential facilities of any Canadian province during 2007 and '08. Already they're struggling. This report is a clear indication that the care providers are already struggling. Staff members are already struggling to provide the best care they possibly can.

In addition to that shortage of staffing, now they have to look after this new list of responsibilities under the bill of rights, which seems to be a good bill of rights. But in order to implement this completely, effectively, and to make sure it happens, they would need additional staffing. They would need additional staff training as well.

My question to the minister will be: what support will the minister provide to care facilities where they need additional staffing or training for a staff member in order to implement this new bill of rights?

Hon. I. Chong: To the member, I'm sure he did not mean to put on the record incorrect information. He indicated that we have not consulted, and I indicated to him that we have had an extensive consultation on the residential care regulations, which provided us an opportunity to build on some of the protections that exist.

As a result of that extensive consultation, we were able to bring in a bill of rights which, as I say, complements the residential care regulations. So there has been consultation, in fact, with service providers. We have consulted with funding program providers, which I've also just indicated to him.

What I also indicated is that in those discussions there was an indication that there would not be additional staffing requirements or that it would not be difficult for these facilities to meet the requirements of the bill of rights, which essentially is to ensure that residents and family members are aware of what their rights are.

The member is referring to another area, and that is the staffing of the long-term care facilities. I think it would be most appropriate if he refers those questions to the Minister of Health Services.

J. Brar: Clearly, there are two different kinds of thoughts here. I truly believe, as I said, based on the information I have, which is…. I consulted stakeholders — I listed and will list once again — which include care providers, seniors, their families and other people in care. They're all consistent on one thing — that they would
[ Page 1883 ]
need additional staffing. They are already understaffed. They don't have the capacity to actually provide quality care at this stage with the staffing level they have.

The minister clearly has confirmed before that there was not any specific consultation process for this bill of rights. I would like to ask the minister to at least commit today to consult the stakeholders about a particular thing — the staffing requirement to implement this bill of rights — because the minister has made it very clear that there has not been any specific consultation with any stakeholders on this bill of rights.

I would ask the minister, based on the information I have after talking to them: will the minister commit today to consult the care providers, the people in care, staff members to make sure they have sufficient level of staffing to implement this bill of rights?

[1635]

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, because of the extensive consultation that took place in the fall of 2004 to early 2005 when we were reviewing the residential care regulations, there had been discussions that took place which allowed us to bring in a bill of rights.

This is not new to the public. As I say, we made it a commitment in our election platform. We also reiterated that in our Speech from the Throne.

I've also indicated to the member opposite that if there was an area that was fundamentally missing from the bill of rights, I certainly would be willing to receive that information and ensure that going forward we would be able to accommodate that.

To suggest that the bill of rights has not been canvassed — indirectly perhaps; not as direct, as I would admit, that he would say; a direct consultation process about the bill of rights…. To characterize that the components of the bill of rights have not been discussed or canvassed is incorrect, because they have been in a way that has allowed us to bring this forward.

The member makes reference to staffing requirements at long-term care facilities. If he feels that the staffing complement at the long-term care facilities is not adequate and he feels there is a redirection of staff because of the bill of rights, then I would really, again, encourage him to raise that with the Minister of Health Services when he is involved — as I'm sure he will be — in the estimates debates of the Ministry of Health Services. That is the minister who will be responsible for providing a response to the member for staffing at long-term care facilities.

J. Brar: Then will the minister commit today to talk to the Minister of Health if there's any additional funding needed to any care facility to implement this bill of rights? The bill of rights comes from the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport.

I think the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport has a responsibility to make sure that they have sufficient resources to implement the bill. Will the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport commit today to talk to the Minister of Health on funding — to make the funding available if there's any need for additional staffing to any care facility?

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated to the member on a number of occasions now, in the discussions we've had with those who have taken a look at the bill of rights…. It certainly has been out there for over a week now, and the indications we have received from people is that they did not see any difficulty in implementing the bill of rights. After all, it is a set of rights that is clarified. It provides transparency and accountability.

A number of facilities, we also believe, are already adhering to a number of these rights. Not all facilities are, which is one of the reasons why we want to introduce a bill of rights — to ensure that there is that consistency amongst those facilities that are licensed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act and the Hospital Act.

I have not heard that there would be additional dollars required to implement a bill of rights, because the bill of rights, as I say, is a clarification of a number of expectations that residents and family members are expecting. Again, the member is free to raise this with the Minister of Health Services.

A. Dix: Just a quick question. The minister just said that she thought there were some care facilities that were not currently meeting the standard of the bill of rights set in that bill. That's what the minister just said, so I'll give her an opportunity to clarify that.

Can the minister be more specific? What care facilities aren't meeting that test of these rights — the right to information, the right to decent care, etc? What problem is she trying to solve? What facilities was she referring to when she said that some facilities currently aren't following this bill of rights?

Hon. I. Chong: The vast majority of facilities are certainly meeting their requirements. If there are any that are not, that's one of the reasons why we have our licensing officials and the medical health officers as well.

What I'm saying, when I said that the bill of rights not being implemented…. It's about, for example, the posting of what rights are. That's the whole idea here — that the new bill of rights…. It builds upon existing protection. It also means that they have to be prominently displayed in a location.

[1640]

There are facilities currently in operation, which I'm sure the members have visited, that don't have anything displayed. Maybe some facilities do have some information displayed, but the bill of rights, essentially, as we've introduced it here, does not have facilities
[ Page 1884 ]
displaying them in a prominent location. That's what we're saying.

If you're looking specifically for violations of the residential care regulations, I'm not saying that's what is taking place. I'm saying the bill of rights does not exist, per se, currently requiring all facilities to display it. After the passage of this, we will have a bill of rights that will require all facilities to display this in a prominent location.

Again, I would caution the Health critic that if he has concerns that he wishes to raise specifically about a care facility, he can certainly do that with the Minister of Health Services. What I'm primarily concerned here, in the passage of the bill of rights, is to ensure that information is available, that the commitment to care that needs to be clarified is available for all residents and family members upon admission when they enter a care facility.

J. Brar: Can the minister provide the details about the complaint process, as to how many steps there are, timelines about each step and how the complaint can be made?

Hon. I. Chong: I did indicate earlier that the bill of rights is embedded in the Community Care and Assisted Living Act, which means that licensing officers would consider the obligations that the bill creates in conjunction with other requirements on facility operators.

Licensing officers have a range of tools that they can use to ensure compliance with the regulations and legislation. They include progressive enforcement ranging from discussion to resolve an issue, to action on the facility operator's licence — such as suspending or cancelling a licence, applying terms or conditions to a licence or, in a severe case, appointing a public administrator.

Contracted facility operators under the Hospital Act are accountable for ensuring compliance with the bill of rights through their service contracts with the health authorities. Health authority owned and operated facilities under the Hospital Act are monitored and inspected through the health authority's specific processes, with authority delegated from the minister under the Hospital Act.

I hope that clarifies for the member how we interact with the licensing officers and how the Community Care and Assisted Living Act and the Hospital Act are adhered to.

J. Brar: I just want to know if somebody, either a person in care or somebody representing them, has to make complaint…. It is listed here on page 3 that they can submit a complaint under the Patient Care Quality Review Board Act.

I just want to understand how many steps there are, how much time each step can take to complete, and if there are specific guidelines about that complaint process.

[1645]

Hon. I. Chong: I'm hoping this is what the member is referring to about a complaint. Currently the requirement to inform a resident or a family member on how to make a complaint to an authority outside the facility is relatively simple. I say that just because there is not a whole pile of forms to fill out.

If there is a complaint, the individual or the family member is able to phone, fax or even e-mail the patient care quality office, who would then act to follow up on that, or the individual can contact the medical health officer or licensing officer. So there is not a series of forms to fill out, if this is what the member was concerned about — that there are forms and forms to complete.

Then the patient care quality office would make a determination on how to follow up with that complaint. The patient care quality act is under the responsibility of the Minister of Health Services, so I don't have the information about that act and all the details that surround it.

Again, if the member wishes to direct specific questions about the patient care quality board and the act, he will need to canvass that with the Minister of Health Services.

J. Brar: I just want to read this subsection to make it clear. The title is: "Complaints that rights have been violated." "In addition to any complaint that may be made under this Act, if a person in care believes that his or her rights have been violated, the person in care or a person acting on his or her behalf may submit a complaint under the Patient Care Quality Review Board Act."

This ignored the issue only related to the Patient Care Quality Review Board Act. This is to implement this bill of rights and to make sure that if there are any complaints about this bill of rights, these people make complaints.

My question was…. Usually, in a complaint process, you make a complaint, and there's a timeline of two weeks or three weeks or four weeks. In that timeline you get the response. Is there a system established by that kind of objective or a transparent complaint process which is accountable to people in care in this situation?

Secondly, if there's a step like this, is there an appeal process? I want to know that. Usually, in any complaint process, if the complaint is at first stage, whatever decision is made, people have the right to appeal that decision. So is there an appeal process to follow the complaint process? That's what my question is, if the minister can provide that information.

[1650]

Hon. I. Chong: To the member: I'm just trying to ensure that I have, I guess, the premise of his question correctly — whether he's referring to a complaint that is made that the bill of rights has not been complied with, or whether it's within the bill of rights, where it says an individual has the ability to complain. Whether that is
[ Page 1885 ]
the basis of his question…. I wasn't entirely clear what kind of complaint he was referencing. I will attempt to provide him an answer for what I think he was asking, and that is with respect to timelines for complaints as well.

If, in fact, there is a complaint that the bill of rights is not being adhered to, the individual can make a complaint to a licensing officer or a medical health officer who actually makes complaints a priority. My understanding is that they follow up within a relatively short time. Again, it would depend on the medical health officer or licensing officer in that area.

If the preference for the resident or family member is to make a complaint to the patient care quality office, my understanding is that there is generally a timeline of 30 days on which to follow up. A facility would be very eager, I would expect, to resolve any such complaints and would work to provide good care.

As I indicated earlier in my answer to another question, licensing officers could, if there was a series of complaints, under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act — CCALA — require a suspension or require some, you know, changes to their licensing ability.

If that's what the member is referring to — whether a person is able to make a complaint — yes, they are. Those are the timelines I have provided. If he's referring to complaints made respecting the quality of care, that goes to the patient care quality office, and those would be areas that would be administered generally through the medical health officer and, of course, through the Ministry of Health Services.

I hope I've gotten the, I guess, fundamental question that the member asked. If not, I apologize, and maybe he could rephrase it so that I make sure I get him the answer he's looking for.

J. Brar: My question was of course about the bill of rights, where a person believes that this bill of rights was not adhered to. In that situation, where does that person go to make sure this bill of rights is given to him or her? That was the question.

[1655]

The second question was: I understand this is level one, but is there any appeal process? That was my question, and the minister didn't respond to that one.

I would appreciate it if the minister could tell us: will there be an appeal process or not? Will there be that option available to people after, you know, the complaint is made, seeing it's made at the first level?

I would also like to ask the minister…. The Leader of the Opposition proposed to have an independent officer to oversee the quality of care of seniors. I think that was a good idea. Was there any consideration given by the minister to have an independent officer? We are talking about the quality of care for the seniors as well as other residents in care facilities.

Hon. I. Chong: To the member — wanting, again, to make sure I have his response: if there is a complaint about the bill of rights, the complaint can be made through, as I said, phone, fax or e-mail, generally to the medical health officer, who then can take action.

In terms of the appeal process, there are two. If in fact the medical health officer does take action and attaches conditions to the licensee or the operator, then the appeal process for that licensee or operator would be to the licensing board. If the complainant would like to appeal the decision that is made by the medical health officer, they can appeal that to the patient quality review board. There is an appeal process for the licensee and an appeal process for the complainant.

With respect to the question that the member poses regarding the Leader of the Opposition's request for a seniors advocate, there had been an advisory group for the Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors Issues that had been established, and a number of recommendations were made to improve the care of seniors throughout the province. Those recommendations did not advise or include an appointment of a seniors advocate.

[1700]

A. Dix: I'm surprised to hear the minister raise the work of the advisory council, because so many of the recommendations have, in fact, not been adopted by the government on so many areas. I mean, Dr. Patricia Baird put forward an outstanding report. In general, the recommendations have been ignored by the government. So I'm surprised to hear that used as an argument against having an independent seniors officer.

Surely, one of the issues in the exercise of rights is confidence in the system. If you're a senior in the one lone long-term-care home in your community, as you might be in Williams Lake, the practical exercise of rights in a process that may or may not be seen as independent is an important element. That's why having an independent seniors commissioner who can make investigations independent of the funding agencies is a really good idea, and I recommend it to the minister.

I have a couple of short questions to the minister about, first of all, the rights themselves. I just want to clarify this, because I know when legislation is brought forward to cabinet committees, cost elements are brought forward. You have the costs of legislation, potential costs.

Is the minister saying that when this bill was brought forward to cabinet, the analysis of staff — whether it was Treasury Board staff or Healthy Living staff or whatever it was — was that it would have no additional costs to the government and no additional costs to the care homes?

Hon. I. Chong: I indicated that in the discussions we had with a number of funding programs that were being provided and some service providers, they did not feel there would necessarily be additional costs. Accordingly,
[ Page 1886 ]
we do not anticipate that there will necessarily be additional costs.

That's not to say that a facility, if it decided to embellish some of the rights and provide even more standards in their facility and wished to hire additional staff to do so…. That's not to suggest they cannot do that. What we're saying is that in our discussions we did not anticipate there would be additional costs.

A. Dix: Well, we currently have the lowest care standards in the country, according to Statistics Canada, so that might be a desirable goal. If there's no ability to improve those care standards in this legislation, then I guess that is unlikely to happen.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The question is this. Many care homes receive the overwhelming portion of their beds…. Almost all their beds, in most cases, are essentially subsidized beds, health authority beds. They buy the beds. There are usually a few beds on the edge that are market-rate beds, but essentially many of the care homes are virtually 100 percent publicly funded, whether they're private or non-profit or public, and they're paid at a certain level.

Since the minister did not consult the B.C. Care Providers Association in advance of bringing in this legislation, I'm not sure how she would know that. But if it's the case that this did have costs, then those costs would actually be paid for out of the very care standards that are already the lowest in the country.

I guess that's the question I have. Is it the opinion of the government that there will be additional cost imposed on the government or on care homes or on others as a result of this legislation?

Hon. I. Chong: Hon. Chair, welcome back.

As I've indicated to the member for Surrey-Fleetwood, the new bill of rights builds upon existing protections for residents of facilities that are licensed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act and the Hospital Act. The member acknowledges that, I see, with his shaking of the head.

[1705]

What we're doing, as I say, is providing additional requirements, which are things like articulating government's commitment to care and to individualized care plans. Now, these individualized care plans are existing in some facilities — in fact, I believe, the vast majority of facilities — but it just provides that more clear articulation. It enshrines a right of participation. That, too, does not necessarily mean that the development of a plan is already not providing a right of participation.

This is, again, about ensuring that residents and their family members are aware of that right. It's about promoting accountability to residents and family members by requiring the posting of the most routine inspection report. If there is a routine inspection report that previously had been filed away, this now requires that it be posted in a way that a family member or a resident is made aware. Again, I don't believe you need to hire an additional staff person to do that.

It means informing residents and family members, as the member for Surrey-Fleetwood had asked about, the right to make a complaint. That could be providing them information. It could be referring them to a website to let them know how they can make a complaint. It can even be a facility having a binder of information available that the member or a family member can look through to determine what those steps are to make a complaint.

There are a number of areas here that, again, provide for and build upon the existing protections that do exist but don't necessarily require additional staff to do them. If the member is concerned, in particular — and it sounds like he is — about the commitment of long-term-care hours and that was being provided, then again I would ask that he refer those to the Ministry of Health Services when he, I'm sure, will debate those in those budget debates.

A. Dix: The minister doesn't include in her discussion, too, the set of rights here that seem pretty important to me and presumably to the seniors. It's of course 2(a): "to be treated in a manner, and to live in an environment, that promotes his or her health, safety and dignity." The issue here is with respect to the cost of the legislation — because that would presumably come out of care hours — and whether, in fact, the lowest care standards in the country meet the test that the government is applying to those rights.

There are other questions — presumably, to receive and communicate with visitors in private. There are other provisions that may have cost implications, but let's be clear. When you're 12.5 percent below the national average on care hours and you're 25 percent below the average in western Canada, clearly other jurisdictions have a different view as to what constitutes the health, safety and dignity of those in care homes.

This is the issue we're canvassing here. Whether the minister believes that with the lowest care standards in the country, established by Statistics Canada, based on information provided by the government of British Columbia…. It didn't come from Mars or even a left-wing think tank. It came from the government of British Columbia — this information. It absolutely came from them.

Clearly, Alberta doesn't believe that. They have higher standards. Clearly, Saskatchewan doesn't believe that. They have higher standards. Clearly, Manitoba doesn't believe that. They have higher standards. I could list off the remaining provinces, but you get the idea.

The question is: does the minister believe that clause 2(a), given the care standards in British Columbia, is
[ Page 1887 ]
being met presently in care homes, based on the level of care hours provided? This is something, by the way, mentioned by Dr. Patricia Baird in her report to the Premier — whether that issue of direct hours of care has an impact on the rights contained in 2(a).

Hon. I. Chong: If the member wishes to continue to canvass care hours, again I would refer him to the Minister of Health Services in the budget estimates debate.

[1710]

What I said earlier in response to some questions was that there is a requirement that individualized care plans are developed for each resident and that each resident and/or family member be provided an opportunity to help develop those plans. Because each of these plans will differ, perhaps, from resident to resident, facility to facility, once having that plan developed, it would require that facility and the staff in that facility to implement that, provide for that. Based on the direction of that care plan, the staff would have to provide that level of care as required.

The bill of rights ensures that family members and residents are aware that they are allowed to have individualized care plans for each resident, and those will have to be developed in cooperation and collaboration with that particular resident and with the family members.

A. Dix: I wanted to canvass a little bit the issue of the rights to transparency and accountability, which is in clause 4 of this section. In particular, as the minister will know as we list off the rights contained here, they are the right of access to certain information; copies of the law; the inspection record — the minister has canvassed that; direct fees and other amounts that he or she must pay for accommodation; if the cost of the accommodation is prepaid, to "receive at the time of prepayment a written statement setting out the terms and conditions"; and "to have his or her family or representative informed of the matters described in this clause."

What isn't contained here — and I just want to canvass it briefly with the minister…. As the minister will know, there are dramatically different per-diem rates for care homes. You could be a senior in the Fraser Health Authority — people may find this hard to believe — and you could be in a care home with essentially the same level of care needs as someone else and get a dramatically lower combined government and personal subsidy.

I was wondering why the minister didn't include in this section the right of people to have access to information about per diem rates, about changes in per diem rates, about differences between per diem rates in different institutions — if in fact one would be able to choose between institutions, which I think is in an age of a shortage of long-term-care beds brought about in part by the failure of government to meet its own promises in this regard…. I think the poor Minister of Health said they built something like 800 more long-term-care beds in this time.

You would have access to that kind of detailed information about what the level of government subsidy is, whether it be a public care home, a non-profit care home or a private care home. So we get access to transparency around the share of the costs — which has just, of course, grown dramatically by $54 million — that are paid for by the individuals but not the same level of access and transparency to the rates provided by the health authorities on behalf of that individual.

I'm wondering why that kind of information on the cost of care wasn't included as part of this right to transparency and accountability.

Hon. I. Chong: We wanted to ensure, in terms of rights to transparency and accountability with respect to the residents bill of rights, that residents were to be informed in advance of all charges, all fees and payments that the resident must pay for accommodation and services received through that facility, so that they can make choices if they wish to.

With respect to per diem rates, those are issues that pertain to the Ministry of Health Services, and I would refer the member to the Ministry of Health Services in those estimates debates.

A. Dix: But they're not. They're directly relevant to an individual's…. I'm just quoting from the bill here. "An adult person in care has the right to transparency and accountability, including…." I presume this doesn't exclude…. What I'm canvassing is that right to transparency and accountability, which seems to me to include information with respect to not just the individual's share but the government's share of contribution. That would be very useful and important information.

[1715]

I didn't understand the term. I hope I'm pronouncing this correctly. Fortunately, the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke is here to correct me. The opacity — is that right? — with which the health authorities treat this information….

If you were staying at, say, New Haven care home in Burnaby, and you want to know what the rates are, what your per diem support rate is at New Haven — which has acuity levels almost as high as anywhere else in the Fraser Health Authority — and you wanted to know what one of those new, fancy, private care homes is getting as their per diem rate, isn't that a reasonable thing to know?

Aren't those reasonable things, at least for your own care home, that you should have access to? What is the level of the per diem for me, and how does that compare with the per diem for other people in other care homes? Doesn't that seem consistent with a right to transparency and accountability?
[ Page 1888 ]

I understand that there are estimates questions I can ask the Minister of Health Services, but we're talking about the rights to transparency and accountability. I'm asking, and I want to know, why the minister decided that the right to transparency and accountability stopped at the door of the government. Why isn't the government prepared to be transparent and accountable and clear with residents about per diem rates?

Hon. I. Chong: The transparency is with respect to the amount that the resident must pay. Again, the member knows per diems are under the responsibility of the Minister of Health Services, and I expect he will be canvassing those with that minister. You know, there may also be issues of confidentiality. With this residents bill of rights we are dealing with transparency with respect to the amount the resident must pay.

A. Dix: The minister referred to issues of confidentiality. I fail to see what those would be. Why would it be the case that a person in a government-subsidized bed in a private care home doesn't have a right to know what the per diem is and how that compares to, say, the average per diem in other care homes in the health authority? I mean, shouldn't that be included? Maybe it's an oversight. That's why I'm bringing it to the attention of the minister. Maybe it's an oversight.

Why do they have only the right…? This affects them. This is the subsidy for their care. It's not the subsidy for somebody else. This is the direct per diem subsidy for their care, and it actually does affect it because changes in that per diem subsidy can have long-term impact on the amount they pay. But that doesn't matter. They should know this. They should have the right to know this.

People in a care home should have the right to know what the per diem rates are and when they change, and the government should have the same obligation of transparency and accountability to those residents that the care provider has.

I'm perplexed. I'm perplexed as to why it would be that the government would like the care homes to have all of this transparency and accountability…. That all seems fair, and I think most care homes will tell you that they won't have too many problems with these particular provisions of section 3(4).

But it seems to me that the government has an issue with it, because the government is saying to the care homes and to residents in care homes: "Oh sure, you can find out what they're charging you." But the per diem rates and the arcane rules that seem to define the per diem rates — they don't have…. Why, in a bill that's supposed to enshrine a residents bill of rights, shouldn't the resident have access to that information which is directly and intrinsically linked to their care?

The Chair: Before I recognize the minister, I will caution the member on the repetitive nature of that particular question.

Hon. I. Chong: The member's comments that all residential or…. I don't know if he meant to say all residential care facilities were government-owned and -operated. That's, again, not the situation. Well, the mention of government facilities…. What we're referring to here is a residents bill of rights that is applied to all those residential care facilities licensed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act and the Hospital Act, which includes private hospitals.

[1720]

What the bill of rights will enable the residents and family members to have in terms of transparency is to be informed in advance of all charges, fees and payments that the resident must pay.

That's the transparency and accountability that is required of these facilities so the residents who must pay these fees for accommodation and services they receive through the facility are made aware of them; and further, if any part of the cost of accommodation or services is prepaid, to also receive at the time of prepayment a written statement setting out terms and conditions under which a refund may be made. These are about those costs that a resident must pay.

Again, the member refers to other funding issues. Again, I would ask that he refer those to the Minister of Health Services.

A. Dix: I'm not referring to funding issues. I could refer to funding issues, but I'm not referring to funding issues. I'm referring to people's right to know what the per diem rates are.

I understand the distinction. The distinction is that if I want to ask the government to change the fact that we have lower care standards than New Brunswick — and maybe the Minister of Health will say our economy can't sustain those — those would be appropriate issues for the Health estimates. I understand that.

Here what we're saying is simply that the information itself should be available to individuals in care — basic information, the information that would allow them to make assessments as to the quality of their care. If you just know your share, but you don't know the total share, it's sometimes very difficult to make those kind of judgments both for residents and for their families.

This is the point I'm making. It's not a point I'm making alone. In fact, it's a point that many involved in the sector have made before. Surely, had the minister done what the member for Surrey-Fleetwood suggested, which is consult before tabling — consult then table rather than table and say that one week is a long time…. It's been in the House a long time, so people can bring forward their issues. Then she might know there
[ Page 1889 ]
is actually quite a bit of concern about the transparency around per diem rates.

The final question I wanted to ask is…. The minister, I guess, is determined that the transparency and accountability rights established by this law do not apply to the government or the health authorities. We're stuck on this point. Far be it for me to continue to belabour a point where the minister clearly is not prepared to apply the same standards to the government that the government wishes to apply to other people.

I want to ask about the issue of complaints themselves. I mean, it's a practical challenge, and the minister will know this. The minister referred to the independence issue and sort of dismissed it by referring to a report that the government almost entirely hasn't adopted. In any case, the independence issue becomes important here.

Why is it important frequently? Why was it important, in our view and eventually in the government's view…? That's why I'm going to make this case to the minister now, in hopes of changing her mind.

Why was it important, in this House's view ultimately, that there be an independent child representative? It was important because the power relationships…. In order to have rights, you have to have the means to exercise that right. It can't just be a poster on a wall. As important as section 1 of this act may be, it's not important…. It is important, I guess, that rights are posted, but it's more important that rights exist.

For rights to exist, you have to have a practical means and confidence in what is a very important section, which is the subsection that follows, subsection (3), which suggests that an individual can't be discriminated against by bringing forward a complaint.

Well, we all know the practical realities. I'll tell you — and the minister will know this, because she does casework just as I do casework — that people are frequently afraid. I mean, they're told there's not very much room. They've got one care home they've got to be in. It's your home. You're dependent extraordinarily on the care home.

[1725]

Then you're told that the law says that you're protected. But without the independence and the confidentiality…. If there was independence and confidentiality, in fact, you could have an independent seniors representative bringing forward the complaints. They could get complaints in confidence, investigate in confidence and frequently protect the confidentiality of the individuals making the complaint by making an investigation of a care home, be it public, private or non-profit.

When you have a circumstance — and we've had, as you know, hon. Chair, some serious issues at different care homes — where the perception is that the agencies that are supposed to enforce the act are also the agencies that are, in effect, responsible for the provision of the care, especially when we're talking about largely publicly funded, whether privately, non-profit or publicly delivered care…. The question is, I guess: why not?

The minister referred to Dr. Baird's report, but I don't know. We'd have to ask Dr. Baird what her opinion would be now on the question of an independent seniors representative. Why not an independent process, an independent place where people can go to exercise their rights in addition to the patient care quality review board that exists now? Why not provide that in an area where, clearly, the level of the power relationships is difficult and different? I think the minister will agree. It is one thing to say that everyone has access to the courts, when one person can afford a distinguished lawyer and another person can't.

Similarly in this case, why isn't it the case that, in addition to the provisions of the Patient Care Quality Review Board Act — which we debated last year in this Legislature or the year before last, I believe, in 2007…? Why not add, in addition to that, an independent process so that seniors and residents in care…? It isn't the only issue at a time where seniors rights are affected. Why not add an independent right in this case, an independent process in this case?

Hon. I. Chong: I'll try to again advise the member that introducing a residents bill of rights was certainly about providing clarity to residents as well as their family members as to what they can expect when they enter a care facility, which will then become their primary home, and for their family members to be made aware of what they can expect.

In terms of rights to transparency and accountability, certainly the resident and the family members have a right to know and to be informed in advance of those changes that they are required to pay. That's what we're talking about — for the residents to know what the charges, fees and payments are that they must pay for accommodations and services received through that facility. Issues of funding will still be those of the Minister of Health Services, and again I'm sure the member will canvass those.

I also want to remind the member, as I've said earlier today in committee debate, that we do have officers or individuals who do look at complaints or investigate complaints. That's a medical health officer, who is an independent statutory decision-maker with the ability to investigate complaints, as well as the patient care quality office, who can also take complaints. There are avenues through which residents or family members who wish to make complaints can do so through those two independent offices.

A. Dix: Well, now I'm very interested in that. The minister keeps prolonging the debate for some reason. I'm very interested in that. How many residents' complaints have the medical officers of health investigated in the last year?
[ Page 1890 ]

Hon. I. Chong: With respect, the debate we're having today is with respect to the bill of rights. Of course, with the bill of rights having not yet been passed, we don't have a series of complaints that I can refer to.

A. Dix: You see, it all comes back to Samuel Beckett.

[1730]

The minister just said that the reason they don't have an independent provision here — the creation of an independent seniors officer — as an additional place of complaint to which people can go to ensure that their rights…. We're not talking about small rights here. I'll just read from the bill, which purports to define those rights. It's the right to health, safety and dignity.

Our suggestion is that it's very difficult, often — in the circumstances of a health care system where people don't have a lot of choices and don't have a lot of power — to make such complaints. So the minister said in response: "Well, you know, there are independent means." That was her response to the last question.

I'm just simply curious to know: outside of the health authority process, which clearly isn't independent, how many complaints have been investigated? We know that there was a role at Beacon Hill Villa. We know that. But how many other complaints have been independently investigated in the last year? That's a reasonable question.

It applies directly to the issue of existing capacity to enforce rights. The capacity to enforce these rights is being handed over, in this case, simply to the patient care quality review board.

In the case of this residents bill of rights, the question I guess I have is whether that's sufficient and whether there isn't a need, given that power imbalance is frequently felt, not just between the individuals and the homes — because I think everyone is trying to work in the best interests of everyone else in general — but between individuals and the government, as well, around their care.

I'm just asking the minister, then. She has referred to these independent processes in response to a direct question about why this provision is this way. So it's a direct question about the bill: how many complaints have been investigated?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm not trying to frustrate where I think he is trying to go. Because this is new legislation and not yet passed — until we do so later today, I hope — we don't have a list of complaints as pertains to the bill of rights.

However, if he is wanting to pursue the area of complaints, as he has indicated, he may wish to pursue that through the Ministry of Health Services. What I'm talking about today here, about the bill of rights, which is still being debated and not yet passed…. For obvious reasons, we don't have any persons complaining against the bill of rights.

A. Dix: If the minister may take us through the final two subsections here. A person raises a complaint to the Patient Care Quality Review Board Act, makes a complaint about — I don't know — whatever the institution may be they're complaining against. Say it's a care home.

They raise the complaint, and then they believe, for whatever reason, that the "Protection for person in care" provision here has been violated. I don't know. Say they make a complaint that they aren't given access to a particular service that they believe they need, and then something happens, and the person believes they're effectively being punished.

The minister, maybe…. Take us through that process of what they would have to do, and let's use in our example a resident who doesn't have a family member around. So they've made a complaint, which would be a very courageous thing to do under this process. One can only imagine the courage it would take a make a complaint, bill of rights or no bill of rights. They make a complaint, and they feel that the fact of that complaint negatively affects their care. What happens next?

Hon. I. Chong: Perhaps I can provide clarification to the member in this way. Section 2 of the schedule ensures that any complaint related to the residents bill of rights can be submitted as a care quality complaint under the Patient Care Quality Review Board Act.

Under the Patient Care Quality Review Board Act, a care quality complaint includes a complaint:

"(a) respecting one or more of the following: (i) the delivery of, or the failure to deliver, health care; (ii) the quality of health care delivered; (iii) the delivery of, or the failure to deliver, a service relating to health care; (iv) the quality of any service relating to health care, and (b) made by or on behalf of the individual to whom the health care or service was delivered or not delivered."

[1735]

So although most issues related to the residents bill of rights would already be construed as a care quality complaint under the act, the addition of this provision ensures that a complaint about any aspect of the residents bill of rights will be considered under the Patient Care Quality Review Board Act.

The addition of the provisions related to the Patient Care Quality Review Board Act provides residents and their family members and representatives with another venue for resolving issues over and above those afforded under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act and the Hospital Act.

A. Dix: Well, yes. That, of course, isn't an answer to this question which is related to subsection (3). What I am saying is the complaint has been lodged — right? I know this thing has been lodged with the Patient Care Quality Review Board Act. The complainant believes that, as a consequence of having complained about the institution, they are, in effect, being in some fashion penalized.

That's what this provision says: "Protection for persons in care." I think what the section says very clearly is that if someone makes a complaint, you'd better not, I
[ Page 1891 ]
don't know, take away any of their rights in sort of retaliation. That's one of the things. It's supposed to protect the complainant in this case.

I'm just asking a really simple question. It couldn't be more simple. Like, what happens? Say I'm in care. I make a complaint. My specific rights under the act have been violated. They haven't told me about a fee for cable television or whatever. Okay? And then they retaliate. I feel they're retaliating against me. What do I do at that point? How do I, in fact, realize the protection that's suggested here? That's all.

Hon. I. Chong: Thank you to the member for giving an example, because I guess what he's referring to is the case of a reprisal and retaliation. Section 3 of the schedule is intended to ensure that there is no possibility of reprisal by an operator should a resident or their family member make a complaint regarding their rights under this act or the Patient Care Quality Review Board Act. That is there.

If that were to take place, again, the ability for the complainant to go to the licensing officer or the medical health officer to make them aware would allow the licensing officer to attend the facility and take a look at that complaint and determine whether or not that licensee needs to have its licence suspended or otherwise have conditions placed on it.

So the reasons why — and I appreciate the member raising it — we've included this section is in fact to ensure that a person is entitled to make a complaint without reprisal, without retaliation.

A. Dix: So the process is that a person makes a complaint under the act. Then, if some sort of reprisal takes place…. And we would hope that would never happen, but it could conceivably happen. In fact, the minister can conceive that it could happen because the minister has included in the bill this particular provision which envisions it happening. You see, we're getting back to Beckett.

[1740]

This is the argument for an independence of process. What you're asking a person to do…. Say you are living in a care home, which means in this day and age that the acuity of your health needs can be fairly high. It is. That's the reality. Every care home operator in the province will tell you that the level of health issues faced by patients in their care home has grown dramatically in recent years. Every single one of them will provide that.

So you have these issues. You're alone in the care home. You make a complaint about the patients bill of rights. You feel you're being negatively affected by that. Then you have to make a complaint to the licensing officer who works for the health authority that funds the care home that you're complaining about.

What I'm saying is that, in my view anyway, that's an argument for an independent seniors representative — a place where people can go other than that. If it has reached that point, in fact, where you're alone in the care home, you make a complaint, and in fact you are being penalized in some fashion for having made the complaint, then you're a long way down the road. So the importance in particular cases of having that option seems to me to be real.

A final question. I just want a clarification on the right to sue. These rights are sufficient to get you before the patient quality review board. But maybe the minister can explain why this provision exists. She may have done this before. I apologize. I don't think she has. I presume that this is maybe a contribution of the Ministry of Attorney General, not of the Ministry of Healthy Living, but in any event, maybe the minister can explain why this provision exists, in terms of these rights under the act.

Hon. I. Chong: Because we are talking about a residents bill of rights, section 4 rules out the possibility of anyone taking civil action against an operator solely on the basis that a right has been violated under this act. There is an expectation, and that is that matters can be resolved through the existing remedies under the Patient Care Quality Review Board Act, the Community Care and Assisted Living Act or the Hospital Act.

A. Dix: So just to be clear, what the minister is attempting to do is keep people within the process envisioned by the Patient Care Quality Review Act. These rights, as fundamental as they may be, are not rights that people should be allowed to take to civil court. Is that really the intent here?

What you're attempting to do is presumably guide the process. You don't want to create a whole bunch of litigation here. You want to create dispute settlement mechanisms. They may not end up being dispute settlement mechanisms, but the purpose of limiting the right to sue based on this would be just that.

Hon. I. Chong: What we're saying is that a resident cannot sue the operator solely on the basis of a violation of the bill of rights. Persons are still able to sue regarding other matters such as breach of contract. This is solely about a violation of the bill of rights, where they are not able to sue.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

A. Dix: I know that, unlike some pieces of legislation which very few people see, this is a piece of legislation that the minister will want people to use and see. I just want to give the minister the opportunity to explain these particular changes and to explain clearly who the act applies to, why those selections were made, if there were any other institutions beyond the section 4 Hospital Act that the minister has envisioned.
[ Page 1892 ]

I just wanted the minister maybe just to explain these provisions, which I think are consistent with the schedule in other acts.

[1745]

Hon. I. Chong: I had previously answered this to the member for Surrey-Fleetwood. The bill of rights will apply to all residential care facilities licensed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act, including long-term care, mental health and substance abuse, community living, hospice, acquired injury. It will also apply to residential care facilities regulated under the Hospital Act, typically referred to as private hospitals and extended care facilities.

I think the member also was wondering…. In this section it says "an adult patient." Previously there was some discussion that this would just be a seniors bill of rights — those 65 and over. Obviously, it was clear that if you're a resident in a residential care facility as licensed under these two acts, you may not yet be 65, so we wanted to include the words "all adults" in these facilities.

Sections 4 to 8 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. I. Chong: I move the committee rise, report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:47 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — HEALTH STATUTES
(RESIDENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2009

Bill 17, Health Statutes (Residents' Bill of Rights) Amendment Act, 2009, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee stage on Bill 19.

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 19 — LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2009

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 19; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 5:49 p.m.

On section 1.

L. Krog: Just so I'm clear, we are dealing only with that part that amends by adding the following before section 1 — the heading. Nothing cute. We're not getting on to the meat.

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes. The section adds a heading.

While I'm on my feet, if I might introduce, to my right, Carol Anne Rolf, and to my left, Carly Macoun, here to participate with us in the committee stage debate on the bill.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

L. Krog: I would ask the Attorney General to just explain why the change of the definition, adding a definition of "in-house lobbyist."

[1750]

Hon. M. de Jong: The term "in-house lobbyist," I think the member knows, existed in the previous provisions. This does streamline to create one form of in-house lobbyist, which, when coupled with a consultant lobbyist, represents the sum total of the two types of lobbyists that are now covered. But the term itself did previously exist.

L. Krog: I note that it refers to at least 100 hours annually. Is there any precedent for that in other legislation? How does the government come up with the figure of 100 hours?

Hon. M. de Jong: Two-part answer. It does exist in the Alberta provisions, so there is legislative precedent elsewhere in the Canadian jurisdiction, and we were satisfied that that represented a significant, substantial enough number of hours to warrant coverage under the definition.

L. Krog: This is where it gets fairly difficult. What does the 100 hours mean? Do we refer it to the definition of "lobby," and if so, does that hundred hours include going out to lunch? Does it include preparation for meeting with the minister? What does it mean when you talk about those hundred hours?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it's a fair question. I've just confirmed that, first of all, the regulatory authority exists under the terms of the act to allow for providing additional guidance. In fact, that is something that the registrar, Mr. Loukidelis, has already signalled might be helpful in terms of….
[ Page 1893 ]

I'm thinking of the example the member offered up. Does preparatory time get included, or is it face time with the public official that is used to calculate the 100 hours?

The notion, by the way, of going from the previous subjective test to the 100-hour test — which, once one knows with certainty what's captured, is more objective — was to have a specific figure. But the likelihood of regulatory specifics around how to define those 100 hours is very real.

L. Krog: As I understand the Attorney General's answer, what he's saying is: "We appreciate there's a problem with the language talking about a hundred hours of lobbying. We understand that it's not defined, so it can include preparation time. Does it include travel time? Does it include face time? What does it include? We're going to do that by regulation."

I guess that begs the question — and I've made this point before around various pieces of legislation…. Surely that should be part of the bill. That is not something we should be defining by regulation. That is something that should be defined in the body of the bill. That's the point of an interpretation section — to provide the definition so that people can clearly read and understand what it means.

[1755]

By defining it by regulation…. I'm not sure that that actually even makes sense in these circumstances, unless you actually define it in the legislation.

Hon. M. de Jong: Look, I also appreciate the challenge or the balance between embedding something in the body of legislation versus creating the guidelines in regulations that are admittedly more easily changed insofar as they don't require returning to the floor of the Legislature.

I can tell the member that the same issue was confronted by legislators in Alberta, and they opted to provide the guidance the member is referring to in regulation. In fact, I can provide the Alberta regulation which they purport to rely upon to the member.

The challenge, as the member knows, in embedding the specific details on matters such as this in the legislation is the possibility that we won't properly contemplate all of the variables or all of the circumstances. But I understand the frustration the member expresses. It is, when we are debating the bill, nice to have that measure of detail in the bill in front of legislators.

In this case, the decision was made, as it had been in Alberta previously, to place the additional defining characteristics in regulation as opposed to the legislation itself.

L. Krog: I'm thinking quite specifically of the situation where you have a non-profit organization, which is not exempted under this legislation. You might recall that the bill proposed by the official opposition included exempting that.

Many of those organizations spend a great deal of time, or have someone designated, writing applications for grants. That's become the new growth industry in the non-profit sector — somebody who actually knows how to slide something into government, provincial or federal, that actually gets you some money.

It strikes me that that, arguably speaking, is covered by the legislation. Would the Attorney General agree that if I'm spending my time preparing grant applications to get money out of government, in fact, I would be covered by this legislation?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not sure it does. I mean, I have the member's point that one could argue. I would, though, perhaps make the argument that someone in their office dealing with an application form that has been prepared by government for general application or general availability, someone that is merely completing that application form, isn't engaged in an activity that falls within the ambit of the law — of this law, at least.

L. Krog: When you go to the definition of "lobby" in this bill, it talks about: "…the awarding, amendment or termination of any contract, grant or financial benefit by or on behalf of the government of British Columbia or a Provincial entity." It seems to me, on the plain reading of it, that if I'm preparing that grant application and I take that grant application to government and meet with somebody and ask for the money, so to speak, that's lobbying.

[1800]

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, that may well be. I think, in fairness, the member's first question left me with the impression that we were talking about someone in their office at a non-profit organization filling out an application form.

If the next step is taken and the decision is made to pursue that application by engaging in meetings with those officials who may be responsible for deciding upon that application, I think the member's argument is perhaps much stronger that that is an activity that would be captured by these provisions.

L. Krog: I think the Attorney General has my point. I'm coming back to the non-profit and my previous questions around the issue of how much time is involved.

It seems to me — based on what I know about the non-profit sector, having been involved in it myself as a director of various organizations before I got to this place — that there are very few non-profits operating in our communities today in British Columbia that won't be caught — I emphasize "won't be caught" — by this
[ Page 1894 ]
legislation. If the regulations that the government passes that define, essentially, what constitutes those 100 hours of lobbying, I would think that there are people spending…. Literally, that's a position or a half-time position in any given non-profit.

If the end result is to get it in front of government and ask for money, and the definition of "lobbying" at 100 hours includes that preparation application time that results in the presentation, then this bill is going to essentially impact on every non-profit. I want to hear the Attorney General's response to the point I'm trying to make. I've perhaps been a bit obtuse, but I think he's getting it.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think where there may be a difference of opinion is my own view that that preparatory work is not, on the face of the legislation, captured. Beyond that, I am not of the view that regulations defining the 100 hours would or should capture that preparatory work. The objective here is to capture the act of communicating for the purpose of influencing.

I should say, as well, because the member has raised it, that there was a purposeful decision to include or, by virtue of what other jurisdictions have done, not exempt non-profit organizations, non-profit societies. The concern, quite frankly, was that there are perhaps inventive ways by which some agencies may try to shield or avoid the provisions of this act by utilizing the auspices of a non-profit organization to lobby on their behalf.

So it was a specific public policy decision. The member is correct. We opted in favour of not exempting non-profit organizations, which is what some jurisdictions have done.

L. Krog: Two points arising from what the Attorney General has had to say. Firstly, by regulation, Alberta — which I presume from the Attorney General's remarks we're going to rely on as the basis for regulation in British Columbia…. What does that cover?

Secondly, is the Attorney General driving at, for instance, the point that the Fraser Institute is an example of what he was thinking about when he talked about not-for-profit organizations that would be lobbying government?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll maybe deal with them in reverse. I didn't have a specific example in my mind. I'd like to think about the one that the member offers up before I either accept or reject it as applicable.

[1805]

I'm happy to send it over to the member. The Alberta regulation, under a heading "Time Spent Lobbying," refers to the 100 hours annually. It then goes further and says that "time spent lobbying is indicated by the time spent communicating with a public office holder but does not include time spent preparing for the communication." I'm not sure we'll mirror that, specifically, but it's an indication of what Alberta has opted for in terms of further refining the definition of the hundred hours.

L. Krog: Let's have an example where someone is hired to do lobbying for government, so they engage in a significant advertising campaign. It may cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. But they spend two hours in front of the minister lobbying for the object of that advertising campaign.

If I understand this correctly, and having listened to the readout on the regulations then, those two hours…. I don't constitute an in-house lobbyist, notwithstanding the amount of money that's been spent on the campaign designed to get government to do something.

Hon. M. de Jong: I don't think this is a complete answer to the member's question, but I did want to make the point at the outset that I am not of the view that a general and widespread advertising campaign or any of the work that goes into preparing such a campaign is captured by these provisions. One can imagine that in those circumstances, the objective is to create a general public sense of support or a general public pressure on the government. But it is something different than a direct communication with government aimed at influencing public policy in that direct way. It aims, I suppose, to influence broader public opinion as well.

That, I'm fairly certain, doesn't answer the member's question, but it lets him know how I am thinking about his example that incorporates a general advertising campaign.

L. Krog: I won't use an existing example, lest any institute take some umbrage at my remarks. A non-profit society has been formed. It's like a think tank. It doesn't meet with government on a regular basis. It draws funds by contributions. Maybe it's a labour organization. Maybe it's a business organization. It draws funds in.

It has a specific goal of increasing the minimum wage on one hand or reducing the level of corporate taxation on the other. It spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on an advertising campaign pressuring, raising the public awareness of the issue, but the "director" — let's use the language of the bill — an officer, the president, the CEO of that organization spends two hours in front of the Minister of Finance.

My reading of this act is that they wouldn't have to register because, in a given year, if that's all they did, notwithstanding this enormous advertising campaign which most of the public would see as a lobbying effort in the big-L use of the word, that would not constitute lobbying under this statute.

[1810]

Hon. M. de Jong: With this caveat, and we're dealing in examples, so I trust the member…. In any example
[ Page 1895 ]
there may be circumstances that we haven't thought of, but two things. It would be the cumulative total. So it may be the CEO or the president of the organization is two hours. It may be that there are others within the organization that are also communicating directly with government.

But I think the essence of the hon. member's point is this. Does this act, this bill and the provisions within the bill, purport at this stage to regulate a widespread advertising campaign that is designed to influence the opinion of the public and therefore ultimately influence the actions of government? I think the short answer at this point is no.

L. Krog: Dealing with the specific reference to lobby, the language has been maintained that it has to be to "'lobby,' subject to section 2(2), means, (a) in relation to a lobbyist, to communicate with a public office holder in an attempt to influence" and then gives a long list. That wasn't the recommendation of Mr. Loukidelis following the Dobell example, and it's not the practice in other jurisdictions as I understand it. Why has the government retained that language?

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, the member has zeroed in correctly on, I think, an important point and one that arises as a result of a purposeful decision on the part of government.

Government's objective in terms of the act and its amendments is not to endeavour to regulate every single form of communication that takes place with a citizen or organization and government. It is to endeavour to regulate and make transparent, for the purpose of the public, communication that takes place between citizens and societal organizations and government for the purpose of influencing or deriving a certain result or influencing the behaviour of government.

That is an admittedly narrower definition than it would be were it not for the inclusion of that phrase that the member has correctly identified: "in an attempt to influence." We have opted for a similar approach to the definition as that which exists in the Alberta legislation for the reasons I have just mentioned.

L. Krog: It also, that section, expands the definition to add "provincial entity" to several subsections that expand beyond the terms "government of B.C." and "Member of the Legislative Assembly." Can the minister explain the purpose of that?

[1815]

Hon. M. de Jong: The mechanism here is the same — that is, to list which organizations are covered. Under the previous terminology, the reference was to government corporations. I think the member realizes and actually would welcome the fact that the broader language here would allow a broader range of governmental organizations and "entities" to be covered than merely those which exist as corporations.

L. Krog: I wonder if the minister could just provide an example of what he sees as a provincial entity.

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, I should send this over to the member so I'm not referring to a document that I have and he doesn't.

The Alberta regulation refers to an apprenticeship training board, for example, as representing an entity. Madam Chair, if I can table that or even send it over to the hon. member.

L. Krog: I take it, then, that we don't have a definition of "provincial entity." There's nothing in the Interpretation Act — nothing that statutorily defines the term "provincial entity."

I appreciate it. It's a lovely piece of language, but I'm looking for an example that I could go home to Ma and Pa Kettle in Nanaimo and say: "This is a provincial entity. We wouldn't have thought that, but that's what it is."

Hon. M. de Jong: Regrettably, no. It can be captured — different organizations, entities — depending on the legislation.

L. Krog: I am appreciative of the Attorney General providing me with a copy of the Alberta regulations. I note that for the purposes of that act, provincial entities referred to in schedule 1 are "prescribed" provincial entities.

They refer to some in schedule 2 that aren't prescribed, but schedule 1 includes an incredible list. It appears that every institution of advanced education, divided into various sections…. It even includes Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump Interpretive Centre, which is a wonderful place. I recommend that all members attend and visit.

Is it the government's intention to provide a list by way of regulation, at some point, similar to the Alberta legislation?

[1820]

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, that would be the intention. In fact, I think it's necessary the way the act is constructed.

L. Krog: In the section where it relates to the definition of "lobby," it talks about grants. That's included in "(v) the awarding, amendment or termination of any contract, grant or financial benefit by or on behalf of the government of British Columbia or a Provincial entity." I take it that that would extend, then…. Does it extend to gaming grants, for instance, to charitable organizations?
[ Page 1896 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: My best guess at this point is that it would. I think the member is referring to a gaming grant of the sort that we have been discussing in this chamber. I think it probably would be captured by the definition of "grant," as it appears there.

L. Krog: Noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:22 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:24 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TOURISM, CULTURE AND THE ARTS

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the chair.

The committee met at 2:35 p.m.

On Vote 41: ministry operations, $104,454,000 (continued).

S. Herbert: Thank you to the minister and his staff who are here today to take some further questions to our conversation this past Thursday.

We're moving now into a discussion on the tourism section of the ministry. Then we'll continue on with arts and the trail system on Crown territories, if we get that far. I know we have only about two hours, give or take, as there are many other ministry estimates waiting for me to finish up my time here.

If I do get to the end of time and I still have a number of questions, as is likely, I'm wondering if the minister would feel it appropriate for me to read those into the record and then, hopefully, get a written response in a week's time or so.

Hon. K. Krueger: We'd be happy to accept the member's written questions. I won't commit to a week, because these are very busy people, but we will honour the request.

S. Herbert: The first decision was a big decision of the minister early on in his time as minister, and it relates to this budget allocation for the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts. The question is: when was the decision made to scrap Tourism B.C. as an independent operating entity, and who was involved in making that decision?

Hon. K. Krueger: As the member knows, I think, conversations within cabinet or committees of cabinet are subject to cabinet confidentiality. We take an oath that we will maintain that, so I can't give him details of meetings.

As he knows, I was sworn in with these responsibilities in June, and on August 17, I personally telephoned each member of the board of Tourism B.C. that I could reach and advised them that a decision had been made to take the entity into government. The same day Ms. Lori Wanamaker, my deputy minister, who is seated to the left of me today, met with the CEO and gave him the same news. The CEO is the only person who has left the organization. Everyone else who was working with Tourism B.C. still is, within the ministry.

The decision was made in order to maximize efficiencies, making sure that as we approach the most wonderful opportunity we will have in our lifetimes to market British Columbia — which is, of course, the awareness that builds about British Columbia leading up to and going on through the Olympics and then the level of interest in British Columbia — we can capitalize on our values by making sure that we bring people back to British Columbia for years and years ahead by building a relationship with them.

The Tourism B.C. staff, the ministry staff have both been working in those directions. We thought it made sense to combine forces, make sure that we enjoyed the synergies that would flow from that and make sure that we eliminated any duplication of resources, whether financial or human resources.

We got a really high level of commitment from the Tourism B.C. people immediately. They've been moving ahead with ministry staff under Ms. Wanamaker's leadership. We have absolutely no doubts that it was the right thing to do.
[ Page 1897 ]

S. Herbert: The minister will no doubt be aware that I myself, as the opposition critic for Tourism, Culture and the Arts, disagree with the minister's viewpoint on this issue. I think that Tourism B.C. was a vital leader in terms of marketing tourism in B.C., well applauded internationally for its independence from political interference.

We've had this debate before in the Legislature, when the decision was made and when we saw this come through in the amendments that the minister was involved in. I'm going to try again to keep it focused on quick questions. Hopefully, we'll get quick answers so that we can make the political debates outside of this committee room. There are many, as the minister well knows.

[1440]

Had Tourism B.C. made any decisions that the government disagreed with? I just mention this because the minister had mentioned that we needed to align values between the government and Tourism B.C. I'm wondering if there were any decisions or values that Tourism B.C. held which were not held by government, forcing this change.

Hon. K. Krueger: The decision was about making sure that we built on the synergies possible between the two groups of staff, eliminating duplication of effort or resources and maximizing efficiency of the resources of government to capitalize on a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and make sure that for years to follow the Olympics, we were able to capitalize on the exposure we'd received and to market British Columbia with a leg up that one could have never had without an opportunity of this scope.

S. Herbert: I guess I would say that if that was the real reason — and I have thoughts about what the real reason was for eliminating Tourism B.C…. The question which has been asked is: why wasn't it done eight years ago if it was such a waste of resources, if it was so not focused, if it didn't have synergy?

I argued that it did and that it was necessary, and I think we need to move back to something like Tourism B.C., as opposed to what the minister is moving towards. I think it is such a world leader, with the performance-based funding and with the independence of its board, because they could stay above the political fray and just focus on marketing the province.

That being said, this is the decision the minister has made, so I'll ask some specifics about that. How will Tourism B.C. be funded next year? I know the current budget was about $59 million.

Hon. K. Krueger: Tourism B.C. will be funded by a voted appropriation from the ministry's budget.

S. Herbert: Can the minister provide a breakdown for how Tourism B.C.'s budget is being spent this year — say, to the nearest million?

[1445]

Hon. K. Krueger: I have already introduced most of the people with me to this House, but seated to my right is Raymond Chan, the vice-president for 2010 and corporate relations in Tourism B.C., and behind him is Mr. Len Dawes, the chief financial officer.

I'll read those numbers into the record. The revenues budgeted for 2009-10 estimate: $58.8 million from hotel room tax, $125 million from grants and contributions, $267 million from investment and miscellaneous income, totalling $59.192 million.

Interjection.

Hon. K. Krueger: Did I get something wrong there? Oh, sorry, yes. I was giving us a lot more than we actually have there: $125,000 from grants and contributions and $267,000 from investment and miscellaneous income. That would have been a glorious day for Tourism B.C. if I got away with that.

Operations net, consumer marketing: the anticipated expenditures are $24.584 million. Partnership marketing: $10.935 million. Visitor experiences: $13.1 million. Support services: $5.27 million. Amortization: $2.4 million.

S. Herbert: Within that budget that the minister broke down for me, I know a lot of it is advertising, as is necessary in the tourism field. Can the minister break down for me how much of the advertising is going to be spent domestically — within B.C.

Hon. K. Krueger: Within British Columbia the advertising budget is $1,089,100. The total advertising budget is $21,693,877, so outside of British Columbia is the second amount minus the first. Also, there's a budget of $5,811,318 to fund regions and cities in the regional and destination marketing organizations.

S. Herbert: The minister mentioned the destination marketing organizations. I'm wondering: will they continue? What assurances do they have that they will continue to receive investments from governments in years ahead, as I know they were receiving them in the past, through a performance-based funding model? What assurances? Will they receive it in that way in the future?

Hon. K. Krueger: I have to remind the member that we're dealing specifically with the budget for the rest of 2009-10. We're currently building the budget for 2010-11, but it isn't the subject of these estimates.

S. Herbert: I take that, as I know the Chair ruled on that earlier. I know previous estimates have been involved, and they did allow me to ask about out-years.

[1450]

I asked because the tourism industry has been raising this question many times with me and, I'm sure, with
[ Page 1898 ]
the minister. They're very concerned because, as good business people do, they plan for the future and for the years ahead. So they still have no answers for the years ahead, and I'm aggressively seeking those answers.

As soon as the minister knows, I am hoping that he'll let me — and, of course, the industry — know, because a lot of the jobs depend on it, as the minister well knows.

All right. So we've got a little over a million dollars, I understand, from Tourism British Columbia's budget of $59 million, going towards advertising within B.C. Just nod if that's correct. Is that correct?

Interjection.

S. Herbert: Yeah, you gave me the exact figures — great. Thank you. So that's the Tourism B.C. budget.

Did the minister or this government ever have occasions where ideas that they put forward to Tourism B.C. in shareholders' letters of expectation or other such forms were rejected by the board of Tourism B.C. as not being useful in building Tourism B.C., or too prescriptive, or other suggestions from that board?

Hon. K. Krueger: In my time and Ms. Wanamaker's there have been no such disagreements, and the Tourism B.C. executives with me — who have been, obviously, in their roles longer than I have been in mine — say that they don't remember any, either.

S. Herbert: In 1997 when the NDP introduced the bill that created Tourism B.C., the B.C. Liberals supported that bill, and they argued quite strongly that tourism marketing in the province be made independent, as the current member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head said. The former member Christy Clark said: "We know that if the board doesn't have autonomy, if politicians…are allowed to have a say in the decisions that are made by the board, those decisions won't necessarily be the right ones."

I know, as the member's colleague from Saanich North and the Islands, also a B.C. Liberal, said at the time: "I can assure you that tourism will be a disaster if it becomes part of this government's controlling mechanism. So I want to see that this board is independent of this government's manipulation."

My question to the minister is…. Those comments were about the independence of Tourism B.C.'s board, independence from political manoeuvres. Why does this minister think that it will be different now that he's in control, and that those sentiments no longer ring true?

Hon. K. Krueger: Those members in the '90s were talking about a different government, of course. We all know that, and the member has referred to it as, I think, the government of the last century, and said that he was in the K-to-12 system at the time. This is a different reality.

But the really dramatic thing that led to our decisions this August was the news that was announced July 2, 2003, which is the day that the world learned that we were going to be hosting the 2010 Winter Games and Paralympic Games. Tourism B.C., to their credit, engaged on that opportunity, and they've done a tremendous amount of good work since, and so have the people in the ministry.

It was time to bring the teams together, with six months to go, knowing that in our lifetimes we won't get another marketing opportunity like this — with three billion people watching the opening ceremonies; over a quarter million guests in the province attending the games; 15,000 foreign journalists covering British Columbia for months before and, hopefully, months after; and, certainly, throughout the games a level of interest and awareness about British Columbia that we'll probably never see duplicated but that we are working to maintain.

That is the very significant thing that changed. We won the Olympic bid, and we're working hard to make sure that we leave no stone unturned in making sure that we take advantage of every opportunity that flows from this huge occasion.

S. Herbert: Yes, the Olympics coming is certainly an exciting time. I know a number of folks in the tourism industry, when it was first announced in 2003, were very excited about it. I've had the occasion recently to speak with many senior leadership figures in the tourism industry, and while they say it will be a good thing — the Olympics — for the short term, they're very concerned about the long term.

[1455]

When I asked them about the dissolution of Tourism B.C., they said: "Well, why would you take this organization down six months before the Olympics? It doesn't make sense." If, indeed, it was supposed to be done, and the minister believes that it should have been done, their question is: "If it was so important, why didn't the minister do it earlier?"

Of course, the tourism industry has been vocal, very strong in their opposition to the dissolution of Tourism B.C. I know the Council of Tourism Associations, the industry's voice, has spoken out against it again and again and, in fact, is calling for something similar to Tourism B.C. to be brought back.

The minister didn't answer the question. Well, I guess that he tried, which was to say that his government is not the government from the 1990s, so somehow they're different in terms of being absent from political manipulation and those kinds of things, which his colleagues were alleging of the government at the time.

Certainly, I think anybody who watches B.C. politics will know that a political party is a political party is a political party. That's why Tourism B.C. was so important
[ Page 1899 ]
to be independent, because while the minister might be well-intentioned, and I know he is, there are things that go off the rails in politics on occasion, as we all know from history. That's why I asked the question, but I understand the minister doesn't want to go there, in that sense.

Maybe the minister can help me with this one. How does the minister respond to the Council of Tourism Associations' recent decision to refuse to participate in the minister's council on tourism, as they believe — and I'll quote the letter: "It will not help or advance tourism issues in B.C."? Instead, they're calling for a special operating agency with the same sort of structure as Tourism B.C. had. How does the minister respond to the Council of Tourism Associations' refusal to sit on his committee?

Hon. K. Krueger: When the member refers to Tourism B.C. being "taken down," that's a mischaracterization. I know that the member is hearing it from other people who use that phraseology, but it's a puzzle to me why anyone would think so when we have 146 of the 147 people still working as a unit. We have their corporate culture. We have their plans. I don't think they've skipped a beat. I've heard nothing but optimism and commitment from the people of Tourism B.C., and they have the additional resources of the ministry itself and its people working with them.

Our thrust is to make sure that we not only maximize the benefits that will flow from the Olympics but that we spread those benefits to every corner of the province — all the small communities, all the rural areas. With regard to his question on the minister's council on tourism, I have been respectfully waiting for COTA to announce its decision. Initially COTA had said to me that they would like their chair to be on the minister's council on tourism. We agreed to that; that's Mr. Jim Storie.

They have provided a letter saying that they're going to sit it out, and I respect that. We'll be naming the minister's council on tourism very soon. That's what we've been waiting for. The people that have already agreed — besides Mr. Storie, who had agreed, subject to COTA's approval — are people that, I know, have tremendous credibility with the industry.

S. Herbert: In reading the minister's press clippings over the years, I see that he fashions himself as a guy who gets things done. Certainly, I know that in his constituency he has spoken about a number of the things that he's been able to do for his community. The question is: if the minister had a bright idea for a project that he thought needed to be funded, am I right in understanding that the minister could make it so, now, from Tourism B.C.'s funds?

[1500]

Hon. K. Krueger: There is a careful planning process that Tourism B.C. and Ms. Wanamaker, as the interim CEO of Tourism B.C., have been working through. It was well underway before Tourism B.C. was embraced back into the ministry.

There will be an annual business plan, which will be published for public awareness. There may be changes to business plans, because any business needs to respond to the market, but by and large the ministers set policy, deputy ministers and CEOs implement policy, and that's what's been going on at Tourism B.C.

S. Herbert: If I'm given to understand, mostly the minister would set policy in relation to this budget allocation, but there is the occasion where the minister might have a specific project or something like that that he thought needed to be funded and might make inquiries about that?

Hon. K. Krueger: Well, everyone at Tourism B.C. is very busy preparing for the opportunities that we have spoken of that flow from the Olympics. The ministry has many other responsibilities, and that has been the territory of Ms. Wanamaker and the Tourism B.C. staff.

S. Herbert: So I take that as a qualified yes that it could happen, and has happened, but mostly they're focused on other things.

Will the government, through Tourism B.C. or the ministry, continue to support COTA's annual convention every year, as it has in the past?

Hon. K. Krueger: Tourism B.C. is in the middle of budget-planning. They will see where they end up. I haven't seen the outcome of those deliberations because there isn't an outcome yet.

S. Herbert: I know one thing that happens in the ministry and with Tourism B.C. is often there are openings — openings of new centres and openings of new things. I'm just curious if the minister might be able to tell me how it happened that the B.C. Liberal campaign bus just happened to be at the Peace Arch visitors centre official opening during the election.

Hon. K. Krueger: No one with me here has any knowledge of that, and I don't either. My campaign was in the Kamloops and Thompson valleys area.

S. Herbert: Am I given to understand that there were no communications between either the minister or the Premier's office to Tourism B.C. around that campaign event, back and forth?

Hon. K. Krueger: I'll refer the member to my previous answer. None of us present have any knowledge of that — didn't even know that it happened.
[ Page 1900 ]

S. Herbert: My colleague from Saanich South and the critic for Agriculture has a couple questions on that sector.

L. Popham: My question is regarding the budget for tourism and the reflections of tourism being an important part, spreading through four corners of our province. I'm just wondering if there is a line item for agritourism and how much that would be.

[1505]

Hon. K. Krueger: Tourism B.C. has a sub-budget called Experiences B.C. They break that budget down between marketing and development, and it totals this year $877 million — no, $877,000. Those zeros just keep trying to slip in there. Sorry.

They don't break it down by sector, but I think the member's question is a very good one. We have a lot of unique marketing niches for tourism in B.C. Agritourism is certainly one of them. Mining tourism is another, and cultural tourism is another. Tourism B.C. is working to be able to make the travelling public and the travellers from outside our borders aware of all of those things through our circle tour marketing approaches. That's one of the ways we hope to push the post-Olympic activity out to all those corners of the province.

So whether they're visiting an agritourism operation in the member's riding or in the North Thompson Valley, which I used to represent, where there's one of the biggest sheep ranches in B.C. — they have a bed-and-breakfast and 1,600 lambs a year and welcome visitors in lambing time — or all sorts of other…. Tobiano, for example, is a beautiful golf course, but it's also going to be a working ranch and agritourism resort between Savona and Kamloops.

There are probably similar examples all around the province in the other sectors that I mentioned. We don't have a detailed breakdown of that, but certainly, that's part of the plan.

S. Herbert: Can the minister break down the $20.555 million in the 2009-2010 estimates and how it is being spent for the ministry under the tourism line item?

Hon. K. Krueger: The reason I took a moment is the member jumped from the Tourism B.C. budget to the ministry's own budget and maybe knew that, but it just took a minute to find the chart.

The 2009-10 budget that the member just questioned is allocated as follows: to tourism development, $1 billion — sorry, $1.809 million — I'm really optimistic here today; tourism and resort operations, $15.958 million, and that includes sub-items such as resort development, the management and development of recreation sites and trails, tenure administration and so on; $1.555 million to the archaeology branch; $1.232 million to the heritage branch; for the total that the member offered of $20.555 million.

[1510]

S. Herbert: I had the privilege of meeting with the deputy minister some time ago, and I believe there was a figure quoted of approximately $9 million in one of these budgets for aboriginal initiatives. It wasn't defined at the time. I'm wondering if the minister can give me some more update on what that is.

Hon. K. Krueger: The allocation for aboriginal initiatives is within the tourism and resort operations sub-budget of $15.958 million.

S. Herbert: Can the minister just provide me a little background on what that's for, because I know that times are tight for money all over government. So some definition on how and what the plan is over the next year would be appreciated.

Hon. K. Krueger: Planning processes are ongoing with regard to the aboriginal tourism component. There are negotiations underway, and the plan has not been finalized yet. There will be an announcement when it is finalized.

S. Herbert: I know that the minister has spoken before about how proud he was that he was able to get the government to put $39 million towards tourism — marketing is how it was laid out — and to promote the Olympics, which was announced in the budget. Can the minister and his team break down how that money is supposed to be spent?

Hon. K. Krueger: This money is allocated to a marketing campaign whereby the province, through the Olympic Games secretariat and this ministry, is looking to maximize already existing opportunities to market British Columbia to the world during the post-games period.

The campaign will focus on domestic Canadian advertising outside British Columbia's borders and on North American markets. We'll also encourage British Columbians to participate in Olympic-related activities before and during the 2010 games. We'll be using a mix of traditional and new techniques to bring a unique focus to British Columbia as an Olympic host.

[1515]

The funding will be invested in a multiphased marketing campaign to promote B.C. travel opportunities to travel audiences across North America. The first phase will be unveiled in the next several months, and subsequent phases will run through the games and beyond into 2010, focusing on the many opportunities that come to us as a result of the Olympics and in the years ahead.
[ Page 1901 ]

S. Herbert: Can the minister do a budget breakdown for that $39 million? How much for, say, television advertising, how much for billboards and how much for print advertising? Then also, a budget breakdown based on how much is being spent domestically versus how much is being spent in North America and elsewhere.

Hon. K. Krueger: Those decisions have yet to be made, specifically on which tools receive how much funding. There are negotiations with media outlets going on. When we come to ground on those decisions, the detail will all be available in public accounts. No contracts have been signed yet because negotiations and decision-making are ongoing.

S. Herbert: Is the government considering spending approximately $6 million on billboard advertising in British Columbia from this fund?

Hon. K. Krueger: I've just verified with my officials that there will be no billboard spending within B.C. None of the money that we're talking about presently is intended to be spent inside of British Columbia.

S. Herbert: I'm curious. The minister has said that none of the money we're talking about is supposed to be spent within British Columbia, but his answer to my earlier question spoke about promoting marketing to British Columbians about the games. He also spoke about the post-games period and that that was where the focus of this money was being spent.

But there are only, really, two months, or I guess it's a month and a half, post-games until the government's next budget. So would it be more fair to say that the budget was pre-Olympics and just running over that shoulder season after the Olympics? I'm assuming that this $39 million is supposed to be spent in this budget year.

[1520]

Hon. K. Krueger: The CEO has just made a clarification for me. We are not spending any money on a marketing campaign within B.C. There is expected to be a small amount of money spent on what is referred to as citizen engagement within B.C., and that is expected to be on social media.

S. Herbert: So we've gone through Tourism B.C.'s budget, the ministry's budget and now the $39 million that we are talking about. Just to be clear for myself, none of that money is dedicated to billboards within B.C.? Is that correct?

Hon. K. Krueger: That is correct.

S. Herbert: Thank you for that. That's useful for me to know. Going back to the $39 million, how much of this money will be applied to cooperative marketing with industry partners?

Hon. K. Krueger: None of it.

S. Herbert: Is the ministry going to use Tourism B.C.'s website — a very good website, I might add; thank you to the staff who maintain it — for this marketing effort? Or is there a new website, or something like that, that's going to be created? If so, what's the cost?

Hon. K. Krueger: There will be a new website for this particular campaign. It'll be linked to the Tourism B.C. website. Again, the details are still in negotiation, and price breakdown isn't available yet.

[1525]

S. Herbert: It concerns me — and I'm sure the minister is on top of it, or is working to be on top of it, as sometimes is the case — that we're less than six months to the Olympics and a lot of these details have not been confirmed. I thought that the whole reason for this $39 million was because there was a plan that it was part of, not just something else pulled together. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's part of Tourism B.C.'s plan.

Can the minister tell me: was this $39 million expenditure part of the original plan from Tourism B.C. on how to market the games and use it for the best possibilities for B.C. tourism?

Hon. K. Krueger: This allocation of $38.6 million is in addition to the pre-existing Tourism B.C. budget. It's a supplemental allocation of one-time money complementary to the Tourism B.C. budget, again because of the huge opportunity before us and our desire to make sure that we capitalize on it.

S. Herbert: I've spoken to a number of people in the tourism industry, and what they've told me, based on reading past Olympic plans and past Olympic experiences, is that where the money needs to be spent on tourism marketing is right after the games and that period flowing after the games. That's where you'll get the most bang for the buck.

Of course, leading up to the Olympics, there's a lot of international media and focus already. If you don't have a lot of resources, the best place, they argued to me, for this money is after the Olympics, not pre-, during and during the Paralympics.

Does the minister have another study or something which refutes that argument they made to me? Or is there a plan even for future increases in funding for tourism marketing over and above this increase this time?

[D. Horne in the chair.]
[ Page 1902 ]

Hon. K. Krueger: The focus of this campaign will be having the attention of the world on the Olympics and, having raised the level of interest as well as awareness, making sure that those who are watching the Olympics and seeing the advertising realize that British Columbia is far more than a winter tourism destination. It's a four-seasons destination with a lot to offer all around the province.

The member's colleague, moments ago, asked questions about agritourism, which is probably mainly not in the winter. We intend to showcase British Columbia in all seasons through this campaign. Tourism B.C. itself has for more than six years been focused on the post-Olympic opportunity, and they continue to be.

[1530]

Throughout this campaign and the coming years Tourism B.C. and the ministry will be focusing on conversion of the market from this time of awareness and interest to long-term visitation participation in our tourism industry, not only in our traditional markets but in the many new ones that will be taking an interest in us because of watching us for all this time on international television.

S. Herbert: Hon. Chair, welcome.

Can the minister tell me when the public affairs bureau became the lead agency for marketing the games?

Hon. K. Krueger: Public affairs bureau is not the lead agency. They're working very closely with Tourism, Culture and the Arts. We have wonderful experts in Tourism B.C. and in public affairs bureau, and they are collaborating across the board as in-house experts on how to make the very best of a great opportunity.

S. Herbert: That's interesting, because I was here in this room — I guess it was a week or two weeks ago — and I asked the minister's colleague, the Minister of State for the Olympics, who the lead agency was for marketing the games. She told me that the public affairs bureau is the lead. Tourism B.C. works with them, but yes, public affairs bureau is where the final decision rests. Can the minister explain to me the incongruity between those two statements?

Hon. K. Krueger: I wasn't here for those comments, and having not read them…. Some of the ways the member quotes me, even during this debate…. I don't say it's dishonestly at all, but when he quotes what he thinks I just said and later I read the Hansard, I wonder how he thought that.

I can't really comment on my colleagues' comments, except to say that the Minister of State for the Olympics is responsible for the Olympics. Tourism B.C. and the Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts are responsible for the long-term marketing of British Columbia for the tourism opportunities. So we're really talking about two different things. If the minister said that public affairs bureau is responsible for marketing the Olympics themselves, I'm sure she meant in concert with VANOC. That's certainly the case.

We in this ministry — certainly the people of Tourism B.C., who as I've said have been fully engaged for more than six years in these initiatives — are marketing the post-Olympics opportunities. As various media sponsors have signed on for the Olympics, Tourism B.C. has embedded employees in those media organizations, with their full knowledge, and has been streaming video to the organizations, taking every opportunity that they can possibly discern to market the long-term tourism opportunities for British Columbia.

S. Herbert: A question for the minister about the HST. My first question, before I get into too many of the follow-up questions on this, is: is the minister willing to take questions on the HST — the impact on the tourism industry and his ministry? I know some previous colleagues of his don't and instead push it to the Finance Ministry. The tourism folks have asked me to ask these questions, since they're still waiting for answers.

Hon. K. Krueger: Mr. Chair, welcome to the chair. A little slow in saying that. Sorry, I was focusing on the critic.

The protocol is that taxation questions should go to the Minister of Finance during his estimates, and we need to follow the protocol. That's what's appropriate.

[1535]

I do invite the member, if he wishes, to get a head start on that by giving us his questions on the record now. I will refer them to my colleague in order that he can give perhaps more fulsome answers.

We have both been in consultation with the industry. COTA did express their concerns about HST to me immediately after the announcement in July. I met with them at their request, which I think was the following week in Vancouver. At that meeting they expressed a desire to meet the Minister of Finance. He and I met together with them the week after that.

I know there has been a lot of activity in the Ministry of Finance. If the member would like to put those questions on record, he's welcome to. I won't be answering them here, but I will make sure they're passed on immediately.

S. Herbert: Sure. I'll just fly through them. I think the industry is hoping and glad to hear, I'm sure, that the minister will ask those questions of his colleague. They've been asking them for a lot longer than me asking them here today and are waiting for answers, because they have to plan for their futures. What I'm hearing from many of them is very, very concerning for those
[ Page 1903 ]
small businesses and for the employees associated with them.

I'll go through this quickly. How will the introduction of the HST impact funding for Tourism B.C.? Will funding still be dedicated from the tax collected on accommodation services? Will local governments continue to be eligible for the 2 percent additional tax or the 4 percent resort municipality portion, and how is that planning for the next couple of years?

What studies has the ministry done re the impact of the HST on the tourism industry as a whole? Have they done any? What would be the effect of the HST on the resort municipality transfer tax? How would the minister respond to international media who warn readers, in one case I've seen so far, that if you're planning on vacationing in B.C. next year, hold on to your wallets and purses because the government of B.C. wants to institute a 12 percent harmonized sales tax?

In an interview on the HST the minister stated that the HST is going to be good for all, but that there are exceptions. What are those exceptions, Mr. Minister? I know I saw him earlier today applauding the HST on another issue. What can the tourism industry applaud for in this tax? Tourism is B.C.'s number one employer, with over 117,000 people employed in the industry. Can the minister tell me how many jobs will be lost with the HST within the tourism industry?

They put the figures to me of anywhere from 5,000 to 10,000. I've heard 15,000 as well. What are those numbers of job losses, and how do we go from the Olympics, which is supposed to be a great opportunity for tourism, to July 1, when the HST is brought in? The industry is telling me that it's going to cripple them, especially those who rely on international tourists, which of course is what the Olympics is targeting, according to the minister.

So those are a range of questions. There are many more, and I've read them as well. COTA has put them to the minister as well, getting down to incredible minutiae around labour, around a whole range of issues. But I guess the point that I want to make is that tourism is largely a labour-based industry. From what I can see, the HST is not supporting that industry — tourism, our number one employer and one of the big economic drivers.

The final question on the HST is: how does the HST allow us to ever get close to reaching our goal of doubling tourism revenue by 2015? All the industry operators tell me that no, it will be a big setback, and they'll lose business when they're already struggling with the recession, the passport issues and a range of other issues that the minister well knows.

Those are the tourism questions. I could go on all day on them because it's such a vital industry and one that I'm very passionate about, but I'll move on to questions from the ministry around arts and culture and heritage. Thanks for the staff for being here, and we'll talk soon.

[1540]

Hon. K. Krueger: I'll just introduce the staff who just joined me. This House met Jeremy Long on Thursday, but it was barely long enough to bask in his aura. Jeremy is the executive director of the B.C. Arts Council. He and they do a wonderful job for the arts and culture community of British Columbia. Immediately behind Mr. Long is Andrea Henning, the executive director of the arts and culture branch. To Ms. Henning's right is Jennifer Iredale, the acting director of the heritage branch.

S. Herbert: I'm just wondering how the minister would justify in his service plan — and I understand we're talking about the estimates that are based out of that service plan — cutting core funding for arts and culture in B.C. down to $3.7 million in 2010.

Hon. K. Krueger: The member sowed the seeds to his own answer in his preamble because he's talking about the 2010-11 budget — which, as I've said earlier, is still being built.

The member's own party, when it was in office, didn't forecast future years. Our government has felt that that's an important part of the planning process: to lay out things that we believe we can predict with certainty. Those numbers are numbers that we felt certain enough of to put out, but they aren't the budget that is before this House for debate in these estimates. We do need to confine the questions and the answers to the 2009-10 budget year, which expires March 31 of 2010.

I wanted to correct a couple of other things that the member said on the record as he wrapped up his questions before we introduced the arts and culture people. When he says that the tourism industry is going to be subject to a new 12 percent tax, I trust he knows that that isn't actually true. Perhaps he was quoting someone else who said there would be a new 12 percent tax, because HST will only apply where GST applies up until the implementation of HST.

Yes, some industries, which is what I was referring to in the misquotation the member had of me…. I know he's quoting Bill Tieleman, who chooses his own words out of a sequence and out of an interview that happened with somebody else. Some industries — specifically those which weren't subject to PST, and which still aren't, up until the implementation of the HST — are affected in a different way than those many industries that are delighted about the HST.

[1545]

When people talk about a negative effect on the tourism industry of HST, they fail to take into account the fact that every new resort that's built, every time there's a renovation to a hotel or a motel or a pub or a restaurant…. Every time new facilities of those types are built, they're going to benefit tremendously from the HST, because they won't have all the input taxes that they have had under the current system.
[ Page 1904 ]

When the member talked about small business…. There are 380,000 small businesses in B.C. They employ 1.050 million British Columbians. About 20,000 of those businesses are tourism businesses, but in the many small business round tables that I chaired when I had that portfolio, I consistently heard from businesses that said that harmonized sales tax was the last big thing our government could do for small business.

They've been pretty happy with our tax cuts across the board, our elimination of unnecessary regulation, our fiscal plan and the way it works. But they would tell me that a harmonized sales tax would be a huge boon to small business. They would no longer have two different sets of government accounting books — one provincial, one federal.

When you talk about 1.050 million employees and 380,000 businesses, that's less than three employees per business, on average. They would tell me that it's often two spouses and one of their children or one employee, and they were having to give up way too much of their precious time to government accounting, for provincial and federal taxes separately, when they really couldn't afford it.

So most businesses are very pleased about the HST. Those who anticipate some negative effect are in consultations with the Ministry of Finance, and I will pass the member's questions on.

So take it away, Member. If you asked me a question, sorry, I've forgotten what it was.

S. Herbert: I believe I'd asked about the arts cuts and the out-years budget. I know that the minister has said that he won't talk about the future of the budgets in any more detail, since we're just focused on this year. I asked just because the arts and culture community has been asking me to ask those questions, because they don't know what to do. They look at their books, they look at what happens next year, and they have no idea.

The B.C. Arts Council, as the minister will well know, has been having forums with arts and culture organizations and people. I think it's great, going out and talking with them, but the comment that still sticks with me from the forum that I got to attend is that currently in next year's budget there's only enough money, really, to keep the lights on and keep the staff there but nothing to actually invest in arts and culture.

That scares me and disturbs me, as somebody who is a long-time supporter of arts and culture in the province. Now, we're not going to be discussing that, I know, as the minister said, so we'll move on to some other areas for discussion in the ministry.

Basically, I know the minister has made a number of statements in the House and to media about the cuts out of the gaming funding, which have hit arts and culture groups, and about how, well, you had to choose between feeding a child or making an investment to arts and culture and that the government is trying to do all they can, as the minister says, but it's a tough time. I know he's also spoken about the out-years and how, "Well, we'll get what we can get to" — those kinds of comments. "We'll see what we can do."

The government, I know, has its own study, which was commissioned by the ministry in 2006. In that study it showed that for every dollar invested, the government makes up to $1.36 back in taxes. So there's actually more money, according to this study, to invest in things like health care, dealing with hungry children and those kinds of things.

So I'm wondering what the minister's thoughts are on that study and if investing in arts and culture is actually an investment. Or does he see it as a subsidy without an economic benefit?

[1550]

Hon. K. Krueger: That particular report was done on one set of economic models. There are many reports that are done on various economic models, and they seldom agree completely. That being said, I don't dispute and this government doesn't dispute the fact that the arts and culture communities and the many tremendous things they do provide economic benefit to British Columbia's economy. They also certainly and obviously provide tremendous social benefit in the way that they enhance our culture, our communities, our province as a whole — the way we see the world, the way we think about ourselves.

I've also been conducting round tables in the arts and culture community, and they have a very convincing case that they help with health care delivery in that if they are providing music programs in seniors homes, as just one example, they're enhancing the quality of life. They help seniors be happier than they would be otherwise. They do that for all of us, but certainly, seniors can often become isolated and lonely, and their health breaks down as a result. They've given me very eloquent examples of how they believe that they help with the government's health assurance programs and prevention of isolation and loneliness and illness, and all of those things.

Also, education. They have been going into the schools more and more. I don't dispute that at all — that they help with the delivery of education, social services.

The member is probably aware, because it's not far from his neighbourhood, of an organization called Transitions, which helps kids off the street come in and learn how to do work within the film industry — an inspirational organization, wonderful people. One of the young people they met on the street has come so far through their programming that he now has a scholarship, and he's taking post-secondary education in film-making. So I don't dispute those things either.

The nature of the finding that the member quotes…. There's a scripture in the Bible, "Cast your bread on the
[ Page 1905 ]
waters, and it will return to you after many days," and I believe that too. That's a matter of faith in the Christian religion, but it's a similar finding to what this economic report found. I believe those benefits flow.

The question of how quickly they flow is another question, and what you do in the meantime with the very physical human needs that people have for health care right now and education right now and social services right now. This budget has a $2.775 billion deficit. Is it right to borrow even more deeply than that to provide grants to the adult community of today that will have to be paid back by people who are now children and grandchildren? Is that right?

Obviously, we have provided substantial funding this year, together with the money that flowed from the Ministry of Housing and Social Development through the gaming funds. We were actually able, when you combine that with the $7 million allocation from the supplemental estimates in March, to match the money that the B.C. Arts Council received in the appropriation in '08-09. That's a pretty good record.

I always ask the arts community…. We know that they have those fears the member spoke of, but we ask them to please look at our record, because the proof is in the pudding. There was a $150 million allocation in 2008 when we ran our large surplus, and the B.C. legacy fund now will be under the care of the B.C. Arts Council. The earnings on it over the future years will be provided in further grants.

That was a huge allocation. I don't think there's ever been one like it in B.C. history. It's more than triple the sum of the last four years of B.C. Arts Council funding by the NDP government.

I'd respectfully respond to the member again on the question of the out-years. There would be nothing but blackness on an NDP budget about the out-years. They never predicted what people could count on in the coming years. The member chuckles a bit about that, but it is the truth. It was ten years of a government, and that's the way budgeting was done — one year at a time. People often didn't know what their budget would be until six months into the budget year.

[1555]

Yes, we're talking about today, 2009. We're talking about a worldwide recession that has hit a whole lot of places a whole lot worse than it has hit B.C. because of our solid fiscal plan and performance.

We talked earlier about the huge opportunity of the Olympics and the way it's going to benefit our economy. I think it's important and incumbent on the opposition and on government not to dwell on negative things — certainly not to join any fearmongering of any organizations — but to talk about the facts, talk about the record, talk about what we've delivered so far.

A $25 million Renaissance Fund was made available so that arts and culture organizations could find matching money and build their own trusts, and they did that. They grew it to $55 million. I believe that was the reason for the creation of 61 new funds, and it also added substantially to others.

The member and I were at the Cultch when it opened — a hundred-year-old building completely redone — and we were the government that provided the money to make that happen. Everyone present at the grand opening said that it would never have happened without the $9 million from this provincial government.

I want to acknowledge fully the $6 million or $7 million of partners' funding, but everyone agreed it wouldn't have happened. The member heard the architect say that it was a church originally. It's 100 years old. It was built on a foundation of faith, and that's all that was left under it because the foundation had essentially crumbled away.

This government has demonstrable results, a record to point to. We know we also will be judged by our present and our future. This year we've done quite well, and I hope we do just as well or better next year.

No one can say it isn't manifestly true, looking at our record, that we have enthusiastically supported the arts and culture community in very tangible ways that are unprecedented, including our funding to the B.C. Arts Council. We're still doing better in a time of worldwide recession than the previous government did in a time of North American economic boom.

S. Herbert: I know I've struck a nerve when the minister goes back to the '90s and when he gets into the partisan speechifying about years of blackness but then accuses the opposition of fearmongering. It's a funny thing. A pot calling a kettle black is, I guess, the phrase.

I'm hoping that in these estimates, and we don't have a lot longer, we can share from a position of where I ask a question, I get an answer, and it's not a speech condemning a previous government's times, because I'm asking about this current government.

I know that the minister has talked about the Cultch being built on a foundation of faith and that that was all that was left. Well, it seems to me that this government is operating in the same way right now in terms of the arts and culture community. He says, "Just trust us," basically. "Just look at what happened in the past, and this will be the future."

People, as the minister well knows, can't eat faith. You can try, but it leaves you a little bit hungry. Arts and culture groups looking forward to the future are very scared by what's happening, as the minister well knows, and saying, "Well, in the future sometime, it'll come back, and we'll get back there," is….

For a lot of the companies I talk to, they tell me that they'll be closed. In fact, we've already seen a number of companies close. Organizations shut down and those volunteer networks crumble because of the cuts in the gaming sector.
[ Page 1906 ]

The minister might characterize it as doing very well, but I think in the gaming sector we've seen 44 percent of groups that used to get investments through that sector not get anything at all this year. That's really tough for a group, especially in rural B.C., where they don't have a lot of other investment sources.

You know, it's brutal out there right now. You talk to companies, and yes, there are some success stories. I'm happy to share in success stories, but I'm doing my job as critic to push this minister and to push this government to reinvest in arts and culture in those out-years and in this year, because what we're seeing are job losses, as the minister well knows. We're seeing companies lost. We're seeing cultural opportunities all across this province being taken away from the people.

Now, the minister says it would be pushing the burden onto the future population if we were to fund arts and culture right now at the level that it used to be or if we were to borrow it now. I guess, again, that comes up to the question I asked earlier which was: are they investments, or are they subsidies?

[1600]

If the minister believes that they're subsidies which cost us, well, then I can understand his argument. I see them as investments in our province's future. Certainly, the various studies that the minister has mentioned…. I know the Conference Board of Canada study was saying that something like $1.86, I think — or maybe it was $1.88 — came back in the form of taxes. That's just to one level of government. That doesn't include the municipal, and it doesn't include the provincial levels as well. That study was about the federal government. So if we want economic stimulus, I think the arts and culture community is one of the main ways to go.

I guess because this is the whole ministry, I'm curious if the minister thinks the stimulus money being provided to PavCo either in the form of the B.C. Place roof or in the approximately $42 million provided every year as a subsidy — if we want to talk about it as subsidies and not investments…. Why is that appropriate whereas steady funding for arts and culture — steady investments for arts and culture — is not appropriate under the minister's current service plan?

Hon. K. Krueger: Before I get…. Well, maybe I will address the member's last points first.

I don't think I've ever used the word "subsidy." I think the member has introduced that word to this debate. The government definitely provides subsidies to PavCo. By and large, governments around the world, I think, accept that with those types of operations — stadia and convention centres — that some of that is necessary, but they generate huge economic activity. That is really a moot point compared to arts and culture funding.

We have common ground that we both value. Both our political parties and both the government of today and the government of the 1990s value the arts and culture communities. There's lots of proof on the record of how deeply we value it, if people measure by results.

I don't think that we should go back to talking about PavCo, because the member made a commitment last week about wrapping that up, and we've got really fine people here who've waited a long time to answer questions on arts and culture funding. But the member was called away to other duties, and his colleagues finished up the debate last Thursday. I don't know that he heard some of the answers.

Some of the groups that have not received B.C. Arts Council grants this year still will. The B.C. Arts Council has allocated about $6 million out of almost $11 million that they are provided this year.

[1605]

So people apply for that. Organizations apply for grants from those funds, and there's a substantial amount of money still to be disbursed.

S. Herbert: Yes, I've read the transcript — so thanks. I know that the minister has probably heard my speeches on arts and culture and what my party thinks we should be needing to do, and I have heard the minister's speeches many times, so let's move on here.

Can the minister explain to me why it makes economic sense to cut investment in B.C. BookWorld, which according to a study funded by the minister's own ministry says that B.C. BookWorld is the most important cog in the infrastructure that supports writing and publishing in B.C.?

Hon. K. Krueger: B.C. BookWorld has been in discussions with the B.C. Arts Council. It intends to apply for a grant in the coming year. I can't give any assurances of the outcome — that will be determined by the B.C. Arts Council through its system.

The fund from which B.C. BookWorld enjoyed funding for, I believe, over 20 years straight derives from the interest that's earned on moneys invested through the B.C. investment corporation, and the earnings are down drastically in today's world financial market — even money isn't making very much money — so there just wasn't nearly enough to go around.

Those earnings are far oversubscribed by the sum of the applications, and decisions had to be made as to where funding should go. The member is correct that there was no allocation to B.C. BookWorld out of those funds in this tranche.

S. Herbert: Would I be correct in guessing that that's the same answer that I'm going to get if I ask about the B.C. Association of Magazine Publishers and the Association of Book Publishers of B.C. and Music B.C.?

Hon. K. Krueger: Yes.

[1610]
[ Page 1907 ]

S. Herbert: Yes. The minister tells me: yes, that is the answer. Okay. The minister has often talked about the supplemental funding the B.C. government gave to arts and culture organizations, and I've read the letters. It knew that things were going to be tight after the election, so it had the great foresight to give this extra money beforehand.

The letter that was sent to many of these organizations that received this so-called supplemental funding spoke about it as supplemental funding and good for the future. The letter never spoke about: "There are cutbacks coming in the fall, so hold on to this money because you're going to need it."

So I'm curious if the minister can explain to me why the letter spoke about it as supplemental funding and did not refer to the fact that the money would be needed later because there would be cuts coming to the grants going to these organizations.

Hon. K. Krueger: We were looking to see if we had a copy of those letters, and one is not coming to hand, but we will provide a copy to the critic. They had a line in them to the effect that the fact that the organization was receiving an apportionment — I believe there are 247 organizations that did — of the supplemental funding from the '08-09 budget would mean that those dollars would be considered in the adjudication of the next operating grants.

We were all — opposition, government, arts and culture people and B.C. Arts Council, alike — seeing that the bad things happening south of us and moving around the world might well affect us. We'd seen a dramatic decline in our anticipated surplus for the '08-09 year. The term "supplemental" isn't a B.C. Arts Council term, as the member knows. It's a term of the processes of this Legislature.

The member said he'd read the Hansard of last Thursday. If he reads the Hansard of last March, it's all over the Hansard that the government was very clear. We've eked out a small surplus. We were heading for…. I believe the prediction around September 11 was over a $2 billion surplus. There were indications that it might be substantially larger than that, but that's what we thought was looking likely.

Everything changed September 12, 2008, and everybody knows that. It's a matter of record. Everybody knows why. But the supplemental estimates did allocate $7 million to the B.C. Arts Council process and over $8 million to heritage sites.

It's a rare time that we get a compliment from the opposition, so I want to thank the member for his term "great foresight." In hindsight it's even greater foresight than we thought at the time.

S. Herbert: I guess the reason I asked the question is because in the way that the letter was worded…. I know that the minister has read it as well and read out what he thought was the paragraph that I was referring to.

[1615]

There were a large number of organizations that I talked to, medium-sized — let's say that: medium-sized — level of organizations, who read the letter as if it was extra money, as good work on their parts, that it was a vote of confidence in them that they got this extra money. They saw it as extra money and did not see…. There's nowhere in the letter saying that your budget, your regular grant allocation, is going to be reduced by 60 percent.

So they spent the money and then discovered after: "Oh well, we don't have that money anymore, and we're bigger in the hole." So it's just a caution and hopefully, in future, should government ever do something like this again…. I guess we'll get there when we get there, but these groups felt that they'd been played.

I had people say to me that they got this extra money before the election only to be knocked down after the election with a reduction in funding when they thought that the government had actually given them an increase. I know that a number of groups put out press releases congratulating the government for this additional money and saying how happy they were that they got this extra money from government, only to be rudely awakened that no, it was not extra money. But we can leave that there for today and move on to some other discussion.

Can the minister tell me about latest developments in the government's announced and then reannounced Asia-Pacific museum of trade?

Hon. K. Krueger: I do have that wording now, and I'll just put it on the record. Those allocations — the correct number is 247; I thought it was 257. The organizations that got that money, this is the paragraph from the letter they got. "The amount of the supplemental funding allocated to your organization has been calculated as a fixed percentage of your most recent operating assistance grant. The allocated amount will be factored into the assessment of your request for assistance during the coming year."

I just asked the B.C. Arts Council people with me how many organizations actually came back with the argument that the member just presented. Of the 247 organizations, only 12 have made that argument in some form. There may still be others who make that argument, because we still have the applications that I mentioned in my previous answer. I wanted to put that on the record for the members, and I need a little consultation before I deal with the question he just posed.

With the question about the anticipated Asia-Pacific museum of trade and culture, this was introduced in February 2006 with the following words. "New steps will be taken to support our arts community. A new Asia-Pacific
[ Page 1908 ]
museum of trade and culture, a new national centre of northwest aboriginal art and culture and a world women's history museum will be initiated."

In Budget 2008, $3 million was allocated over two years for planning for the three initiatives. As this economic situation unfolded, which the member and I have been debating, we've had to deal with these very tough decisions about: if we're going to keep our commitments, as we have, to fully fund health care and education, and if we're going to have additional social services spending, what are we not going to be able to afford?

Obviously, when we're dealing with the kinds of tough decisions the member and I have already canvassed, it's not a time to be launching something new. So presently, planning is not proceeding, and the funding has been rescinded. Concept development has been completed in consultation with stakeholders, and we're going to have to wait on those initiatives.

The Chair: Just a reminder to members that when they have the floor, they shouldn't be referring to electronic devices.

S. Herbert: All right. Point well taken.

Hon. K. Krueger: Mea culpa.

S. Herbert: "Mea culpa," says the minister. How technology is changing our discourse these days.

[1620]

Speaking of technology, the B.C. Liberal platform in 2005 spoke about Picture B.C., a new initiative which would "provide a unique point of connection for all the world to learn about our province and to invite all British Columbians to contribute to the single-largest electronic repository of freely available B.C. art and art sources in the province."

When I clicked on the link from the Internet, the website says: "Website not found." I googled it, with a copyright 2008, so I'm not sure what's happening with that. Could the minister provide me an update about Picture B.C.?

Hon. K. Krueger: Well, sadly, I've just been reminded I can't consult my BlackBerry.

I am assured that Picture B.C. is a functioning site. The member is probably much more skilled with electronics than I am. My grandkids are getting to that stage. But I am assured that it's a functioning site.

S. Herbert: I guess we should talk to Google about that. I checked it in this room not so long ago, and it did not exist.

Interjection.

S. Herbert: How did I do that in this room here when we're not allowed to check electronic devices? An implant, Minister. An implant.

The next question. We were talking about PavCo earlier, and I know I e-mailed the minister's staff — or my assistant did earlier today — with a number of questions which I had still remaining on PavCo. I'm wondering, as we are drawing to a close — I see some colleagues here that want to talk about the next discussion — if now would be an appropriate time to put those questions on the record, or should I wait? I still have a few more questions on heritage.

Interjection.

S. Herbert: Okay. I won't check the electronic devices, but I have them on.

The questions were around what kind of a contract the government has or PavCo has with the Whitecaps in terms of how many years they are guaranteed to play at B.C. Place, which I guess is one of the reasons justifying the minister's expenditure, the government's expenditure, on the retractable roof.

The other question is: what term of a contract do the Lions have? How many years are they scheduled to play in that stadium, and what kind of contracts exist there? Maybe the minister has an answer for those.

Hon. K. Krueger: I momentarily harken back to our previous discussion, just to get the website on the record for Picture B.C. It's www.picture-bc.com/.

On the question of how many years have the Whitecaps committed to playing in B.C. Place…? There's a similarity to all these answers, but the questions are distinct, so I'll answer them each. Those details are negotiated business terms with private sector teams, and making key components public reduces PavCo's ability to maximize the benefit to the shareholder.

So while the parties have agreed in principle, and in writing, on all terms, they are waiting for legal completion of the licence agreement. The lawyers are working on it.

How many years are the Lions committed to playing in B.C. Place? The Lions deal expires next year. It places us in a very difficult position if one team knows what the terms of the other tenant's deals are.

These are confidential business terms with private sector teams, and making key components public reduces, again, PavCo's ability to maximize the benefit to the shareholder — which is the government, and the taxpayer, obviously.

The question of what agreements there are with the B.C. Lions and the Whitecaps. That is lease and/or contracts or any other types of agreement respectively in terms of number of years and number of games they are required to play at B.C. Place. The B.C. Lions play ten regular season games plus playoffs, and the Vancouver Whitecaps will
[ Page 1909 ]
play 15 regular season games plus playoffs and potentially two or three international exhibition games.

Fourth question and last: will the minister release all or portions of the above-mentioned agreements to the opposition? The member will probably anticipate where I have to go with that. The requested information includes business information of a third party, and the ministry must take that into account prior to releasing records. The information would be available under freedom-of-information provisions, subject to severing.

[1625]

S. Herbert: Just in response to the minister's statements, thank you for answering those questions in the way that the minister has.

I'm hoping that the minister will answer in the affirmative, as opposed to the negative, on this question. The minister mentioned that those contracts, those negotiated agreements with the Whitecaps and with the Lions, would be available through freedom of information, subject to severing.

I'm wondering if the minister would be willing to release this information to the opposition, subject to severing, once those final agreements have gone through legal, rather than making me go through freedom of information and spending the dollars and the time to do it. If the minister, as a gesture of goodwill and his belief that it makes sense, will release that to us…. Certainly, the taxpayers will want to know those numbers as well.

Hon. K. Krueger: We will proactively release that information as soon as we think it appropriate. There will be some severing, and the opposition may still decide to follow freedom-of-information provisions.

S. Herbert: I'm understanding — as we've got the work about to begin on many key pieces, and the work is going to continue if the minister continues on this path — that renovating and revitalizing B.C. Place Stadium will have its start immediately after the Olympics. I'm hoping that that report or those agreements will come sooner than later. Certainly I will be following that up with the minister. Thank you for that.

The final question I have is on the heritage sector. It's in relation to current budget allocations for heritage. What are they? What is the government's plan in terms of recognizing the need for increased support for heritage in B.C., given the huge number of things that are starting to become heritage as we get older as a province?

[1630]

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Hon. K. Krueger: Welcome to the chair, Madam Chair.

The global number I read into the record a little while ago…. That was a little while ago, so we'll do it again. Out of the budget for '09-10, $1.232 million has been allocated to the heritage branch. The heritage branch people have been working very hard in consultation with local governments and those who operate heritage sites, in innovative and creative ways.

For example, the member is probably familiar with the community development trust money and the job opportunities programs that have flowed from that as well as the tuition assistance program. A lot of displaced resource workers have been working on heritage sites, and they've been receiving post-secondary training through the College of New Caledonia, which is based in Prince George, on new expertise for them in doing renovations to heritage sites. There has been a lot of important work done, specifically at five heritage sites: Barkerville, Cottonwood, Fort Steele, Hat Creek Ranch and McLeod Lake Post. I'll zero in on that one for a moment.

It was established in 1805. It's one of the sites that go back about the furthest for the general population in British Columbia. Of course, first nations were there long before us. It's at Fort McLeod, named McLeod Lake Post, and it had the unique designation as the longest, most active occupied settlement north of San Francisco and west of the Rockies. A number of first nations people have been involved in these restorations and this training.

The budget is what I gave the member, but there has been bridging into the community development trust, which has been very successful all around.

S. Herbert: Seeing that my colleague is here to take up the next estimates debate but wanting to take more time to ask more questions and hear more responses from the minister, I will, however, have to cede the floor. I wanted to finish up with taking us through the last day and a half, I guess it would be.

We started on film, had some good discussion on film and my urging to act now to keep the B.C. film industry competitive. I know we then moved on the PavCo and a lot of discussions around: was there a business case? Were there numbers? When would the trade and convention centre pay for itself, or would it? Certainly, we've made the case a number of times around concerns about how badly blown the budget was, the cost increases. That's been canvassed before.

Then we talked about B.C. Place and a number of questions there. I've still got a lot of questions, and I will be waiting for the report that the minister and PavCo said would be put together for myself and the opposition.

Then from PavCo I guess we went into tourism and the concerns that I and many have been raising around the loss of Tourism B.C. in terms of it being its own independent entity and what that would do to the tourism infrastructure in the province. Then we got into arts and culture and concerns around cutbacks being made, and the heritage sector as well.
[ Page 1910 ]

I'd like to thank the minister and all the staff who have joined him from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts, today and on Thursday, for their assistance in helping the opposition do its job. I'll continue to hold the minister's feet and the government's feet to the fire on this and many other fronts.

[1635]

Thank you for the opportunity to ask the questions on behalf of so many people who are supporters of tourism, culture and the arts in this province today.

Vote 41: ministry operations, $104,454,000 — approved.

The Chair: We'll take a short recess, then, and wait for the Minister of Community and Rural Development to come.

The committee will be in recess.

The committee recessed from 4:36 p.m. to 4:41 p.m.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
COMMUNITY AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

On Vote 22: ministry operations, $176,775,000.

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm going to be, actually, quite brief in some preliminary comments. I'm pleased to present the ministry's estimates for 2009-2010.

I want to introduce my staff — first of all, Deputy Minister Dale Wall. Mike Furey, assistant deputy minister for local government, is behind me here. Shauna Brouwer is assistant deputy minister of management services, and Shauna is directly behind me here. Tracey Thompson is in charge of the community development trust. I believe that we may have more staff over here that I'll introduce when and if they come to help.

What I thought I would do is just list for the record what the ministry is responsible for. I'm not providing any particular editorial here today. We'll just carry on with questions after I've listed out the things that we do.

We are responsible, of course, for local government legislation and local government generally. We have the Rural Secretariat. We have pine beetle impacts on communities. We don't do the forestry side of pine beetle, but we do work with communities on the projected impacts of the pine beetle epidemic. We have community adjustment. We have community development trust. We have the regional economic trusts in rural development. We've got property assessment. We've got the Vancouver urban development agreement and the University Endowment Lands.

In terms of the Crown agencies, boards and commissions that we're responsible for, we have the board of examiners, and we have the Columbia Basin Trust, B.C. Assessment Authority, Property Assessment Appeal Board, Islands Trust Fund board, Northern Development Initiative Trust, the north Island–coast development initiative trust, the Southern Interior Development Trust — I think that's the Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust — the Nechako-Kitimaat Development Fund Society, and the B.C.-Alcan Northern Development Fund.

Those are the things that we are formally responsible for. That's a brief summary. I think we'd like to spend whatever time we have for this over the next day or so allowing the opposition to ask whatever questions they have, and I'll do my best to provide answers.

S. Fraser: Welcome to the minister and his staff, and thanks for being here and making themselves available for this estimates process.

Way back when, I came out of the municipal system. I was the mayor of Tofino from '96 to '99, I guess. I still believe that local government is a very critical part of governance in the province and in the country. They're the closest on the ground to what really happens, and their knowledge, wisdom and understanding of local issues, I think, is something that we should all, from all sides of the House regardless of politics, learn from. I'm sure the minister would agree with me on that.

We don't have a lot of time for these particular estimates. Certainly, today is already…. We only have about an hour and a half.

[1645]

The minister rightly pointed out the fairly lengthy list of responsibilities for the ministry in dealing with community and rural development. I don't think it's going to be possible to go through all of those responsibilities in any kind of detail where we can do justice to them.

So I'm going to try to nail it down and try to leave a little bit of time tomorrow for members that may wish to ask local questions about their concerns in their communities — just for the interests of staff so that they know where I'm going there. I'll try to keep it in some kind of an order, although the notice for these estimates was relatively short this weekend.

I'm going to go right to an issue. I know the minister spoke to this, and he knows — at the UBCM — it's a very hot topic right now in the province, and it's around the industrial taxation issue. I'm the critic, certainly, for Community and Rural Development, but I'm also the MLA for Alberni–Pacific Rim.

Port Alberni is one of the four communities that's facing that taxation challenge from, in this case, Catalyst, although I'm sure the minister and his staff are aware that other corporations, companies, industries are looking at what may finally come out of the court cases and court decisions and, then, what's following through — what's going to come out of government and the ministry from the results of those court decisions.

Just in general, just for it to segue, since July 2009 Catalyst Paper, as the minister knows, has refused to
[ Page 1911 ]
pay the municipal portions of the property taxes that it owes to the B.C. cities. There are four of them: Campbell River, Powell River, North Cowichan and Port Alberni. The recent court decision has since led to a court challenge by Catalyst.

I guess where I'll go to first on this is the February throne speech, the pre-election throne speech. There was a statement made, and I'll just read it here: "…more needs to be done to ensure that provincial tax relief is not negated by local property tax hikes. Our government will work with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities to develop new legislation over the summer to introduce early next year that will protect provincial tax."

Can the minister explain just what the intent was of that statement in the February throne speech?

Hon. B. Bennett: The intent of that statement was to recognize situations in the province where the provincial government had reduced taxes in some fashion for heavy industry — for example, the reduction of 50 percent of the school taxes payable. The community, in a few cases, decided to just essentially claw back that savings to the company by increasing its own tax rate on its property taxes.

So the intent of the statement in the throne speech was essentially that we as a government would like to see our efforts to create a competitive investment climate in the province supported by local government as opposed to being thwarted by local government, as it has been in a few cases.

We haven't, quite frankly, gotten our heads around how we would do that. So I'll save the member a step. In terms of how do we change legislation or create policy that would enable us to do what we suggested we'd like to do in the throne speech statement, we don't know yet how we would do it.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for the answer. Although I know…. Well, I'll speak of Port Alberni. They have made significant cuts to their tax rate for Catalyst Paper. They've had discussions for a number of years, and I'm aware of the tax cut that's around the industrial school tax that I think it was related to. There were two separate cuts, if I'm not mistaken, from the province in industrial tax rates. So I understand that's been done.

[1650]

But the community, certainly in Port Alberni and, I think, in other communities too…. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I believe they've made efforts to also cut their tax base, even though they cannot afford to do so. There are ever-increasing stresses on the needs for the tax base. So can the minister clarify where the increases have occurred? There have been cuts in taxes — significant cuts by, certainly, the city of Port Alberni.

Hon. B. Bennett: It's important not to mix the two issues. You've got one issue that is more general. It's around the industrial tax rates levied by communities around the province that depend on heavy industry like pulp mills, sawmills, mines and other types of industries. That's an issue that the member has referred to in relation to Port Alberni and Catalyst, and there are three other communities involved in that.

I should say at the outset here that there are still some court cases pending, so my comments about industrial taxes are going to have to be fairly general. I really prefer not to end up as a witness in any of those court cases, so I will have to be a bit more general than perhaps I can be after the court cases have been heard.

I said that I don't think we should mix up the two issues. The other issue is more specific, and that relates to the statement made in the throne speech that goes to those — I wouldn't say rare, but some — situations in the province where, again, the province has reduced taxes for industry, and the community has clawed back the tax cut, essentially, through increased rates. Again, we don't know how we're going to be able to deal with that particular situation.

I think, in my view anyways, the more important issue is the first one — and that is, the industrial tax rates charged by communities to these major employers around the province. It's an interesting and complex challenge, really, for both levels of government to deal with.

You have many communities…. Port Alberni certainly is one of those communities, and I live in a community that probably has gone through a bit of a transition in terms of being somewhat less reliant on some of these big industries. But I know that there are certainly towns in B.C. — Mackenzie and Fort St. James spring to mind — that are completely reliant on the industrial tax base.

Of course, some of the communities that the member is very familiar with, like his own and, of course, North Cowichan, Powell River and Campbell River, are quite reliant on heavy industry for their tax base.

To their credit — and I actually agree with the member's comments about Port Alberni, and I'm not sure if he mentioned North Cowichan or not — all of those communities have recognized a while back that they are probably somewhat too reliant on one taxpayer or two taxpayers. So they've attempted, over the last ten years, to reduce that reliance and to change the ratio between the residential tax rate and the industrial tax rate.

Whether what they've done is enough to create a more competitive and attractive investment climate, first of all, to keep those companies there in those communities and, secondly, to allow us to attract new companies is, I think, a fair question.

We are, as a ministry, working with UBCM and those communities to just consider what else could be done to help those communities be more competitive and help
[ Page 1912 ]
those communities keep those major employers. Because if you ask anybody from Kitimat today how important it is to keep those major employers, I would guess they would probably say it's pretty darn important.

So we're trying to take a constructive approach to this. We're not looking at any sort of top-down, arbitrary, unilateral action here. We want to work with UBCM and with the communities. But we do also recognize that the tax rates that these large industries pay in communities go into their evaluation as to whether or not they like doing business and want to do business in British Columbia.

[1655]

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I'm certainly no expert in taxation or industrial tax rates or anything, but I have heard that the actual cost, the municipal taxation portion of companies like Catalyst, represents a very small percentage of their total costs for operation. I heard the term "3 percent" used. Can the minister comment on that, with his staff, please?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, the member's in the range. It's that, and in some cases it's less than that, but I think it would be a mistake…. Certainly, on this side of the House we think that when times are tough, when companies are struggling to survive, if their municipal taxes constitute 1 percent, 2 percent, 3 percent of their annual expenditures, when they're in tough like some industries are, particularly the forest industry, they have to look at that.

I think it would be a mistake to think that just because industrial taxes constitute only, say, 1 percent or 2 percent or 3 percent of the annual expenditures, they're not important. I also think, frankly, that the ratio between the industrial tax rate, the business tax rate and the residential tax rate is another indicator that communities need to look at as well.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that, although, again…. So say it's 2 percent or 3 percent, depending on what community, of the total costs associated with their industry. That's for municipal taxation. There was certainly profit made by these companies, like Catalyst, in the past. Although, I'll go back to 2006.

The former Minister of Forests said at the COFI convention in April 2006, on record: "A whole lot of people have to do some waking up when it comes to wood products and the manufacturing sector in British Columbia. There are communities in British Columbia that have been dining out on the industrial complex of taxes for too long. And by dining out on them, they have actually made their companies and their communities non-competitive." Now, that statement, I thought, was inappropriate for the minister. That's not you, so I'm not going after you on that.

Fast forward a couple years, and you've got a company, which would have been at that meeting, withholding their taxes, unlike any other taxpayer. Certainly, other taxpayers might withhold their taxes, but they have to face consequences for that. Their withholding of taxes, I would suggest, was incited by the previous Forest Minister.

I'm just curious as to why there's been no movement by this ministry, this minister or this government to help steer away from forcing communities to have to face this in court, because I believe that the previous Forest Minister incited this action.

Hon. B. Bennett: I have spoken to some of the forest companies in the province who have withheld municipal taxes. None of them have indicated to me that any statements by any former Forest Ministers have had anything to do with their decision to withhold their taxes. They've indicated both to me and also in the media — and I've read dozens and dozens of comments by these companies in the media — that it is strictly a fiscal reality for them, that they are trying to find ways to survive.

They are using their refusal to pay taxes that are owing, I suppose, as a gesture, sending a signal to the communities and to the province as a whole. I'll repeat what I've said here many, many times, each time that I've talked publicly about this — and that is, that these taxes are payable, and the companies have no choice. They must pay their taxes.

In terms of the member's question or comment about the province stepping in at a time like this, when the taxes were payable as of July 1 and haven't been paid, there are other situations in the province where taxpayers don't pay their taxes. We wouldn't ordinarily step in and pay a delinquent taxpayer's taxes, and we're not going to do that in this case.

[1700]

We make it very clear to the taxpayer — actually, in all cases, whether it's a large industrial taxpayer or whether it's an individual — that when the taxes are levied, they're payable, and we support the communities in that.

That's a wholly different issue than the issue of tax policy and competitiveness that I talked about here a few minutes ago. I don't believe that there is a role for the province right now other than to support these communities through infrastructure planning, infrastructure grants. We certainly support them through our small community grants and traffic fine revenues through the community development trust job opportunities projects and the other components of the community development trust. We've tried to support all of these communities.

I know that my colleague from the Ministry of Forests has also gotten into a lot of these communities and done everything that he can do from his ministry, but I don't think that it is an appropriate thing for government to
[ Page 1913 ]
do — to pay somebody else's taxes. I think that the taxpayer will have to come to grips with that.

S. Fraser: In that, I think we're in agreement. I was not suggesting that the minister or the ministry step in there and pay the industrial taxes for Catalyst. I appreciate the minister citing things like community development trust and other things that are happening or have happened, and I plan on getting into those throughout this estimate, but I see those as separate issues.

We have established here, I think we've agreed, that it's a very small portion — the municipal tax portion — of the total cost to the company, Catalyst in this case, and they are claiming it's too much. They are withholding their taxes. That's the reality. They are also threatening and challenging, in essence, the entire tax structure, the municipal tax structure, which the government — I'm not saying this government but any government, the provincial government, whoever is sitting there — is responsible for.

The municipal governments, the city governments of Port Alberni, North Cowichan, Powell River and Campbell River did not design the tax system that they are beholden to, that they must work under. They may have designed it differently, indeed, if they had the option to do that, but they're stuck with what the province has given them, and there has been no assistance in regards to dealing with this.

Maybe the ministry or the minister has done some research on this — the claim made by Catalyst that the taxes are too high. I think everyone in this room could make the same claim of any taxation. I mean, people don't like paying taxes. I understand that, and I'm sure that the minister understands that too, but has there been any analysis to suggest that there might be other things that would be more applicable to costs that are maybe causing the company hardship at this point?

Has the company been overcapitalized? Has there been any research done on that? Have the board of directors maybe been taking too much in the way of bonuses? I think it was in 2007 — I could be wrong, but I believe that it was fiscal 2007 — that there was $15 million, if I'm not mistaken, that went to the top ten directors in Catalyst. If I'm not mistaken, at that point their books were in the red, too.

I'm not going to try to second guess the company and how they want to run their business, but just could the minister explain what analysis might have been done by the ministry as to if there were other things at play here that may have caused the problems for Catalyst?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I'll just correct one statement that the member made. He said that government has provided no assistance to these four communities dealing with Catalyst Paper. In fact, I met almost immediately with the mayors of these four communities, and they asked us for some assistance. We have provided that assistance.

[1705]

They asked us to get involved with UBCM, and rather than do something that's somewhat more arbitrary and unilateral as a provincial government, to work with the communities through UBCM to discuss the industrial tax rates and what can be done to make the province more competitive.

They also asked that my senior staff work directly with them. That's happened. They asked that in some cases we have staff go up to the communities. They've also asked that we help with things like infrastructure grants, planning and that sort of thing.

As far as I'm aware, the four communities, the four mayors, are satisfied with what we have done, and they have not asked for anything different or anything more. They have not asked us to pay the taxes that are owing by Catalyst. I think we have actually provided the assistance that we were asked to provide.

With regard to the member's question about the analysis that government might do to determine why…. Sorry. I don't mean to make light of the member's question, but we don't analyze a company to determine why it can't pay its taxes. It can't pay its taxes. That's really the important thing.

We as a government have reduced their corporate taxes to the second lowest in the country. We've reduced their school taxes by 50 percent, and we got rid of the dreaded corporate capital tax that the member's predecessor government brought in, in the 1990s, that frightened away all kinds of investment. We got rid of that. We took the sales tax off the purchase of machinery and equipment.

We've tried, and we're not perfect, and I would never claim that to the member. But we have tried to create a more inviting investment climate for the forest industry and for the business community in general and over the past eight years have had some considerable success at generating investment in the province and new jobs.

It just would appear that in the pulp and paper industry in particular they are having great difficulty competing with firms, offshore in particular. With the economy in the condition that it's in today, their product, no matter where it comes from, isn't selling the way it was selling a few years ago. That's a market situation.

We can't really change the market situation. The companies have to deal with that as best they can. Again, I think, frankly, that our government has done a tremendous amount to create an investment and operating climate in this province that is attractive for companies in all fields.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. Well, the minister can argue that this government has made an investment climate that's surpassing what's happened before, I suppose. It's not working out very well.
[ Page 1914 ]

The tax cuts that the minister has referred to — what agreement or what commitment did the minister get, from those tax cuts, for the companies to reinvest or create jobs?

Hon. B. Bennett: You know, we have a market economy here in Canada, in North America. We're part of that market economy. We're a small jurisdiction, and we depend primarily on our exports. There are certain things that governments can do to make a jurisdiction more attractive for investment and for operating a business. I've already indicated or mentioned a number of the initiatives that our government has brought in.

With all due respect to the member, I think the question is indicative of the NDP approach to the economy and to business. We on this side of the House will try and keep our taxes down as low as we can to be competitive. We'll try and reduce the amount of regulation that makes it difficult to do business, and we will identify other opportunities to create a more competitive business climate in the province.

But we don't run those businesses. We don't control the market economy in the world. We certainly don't control markets, and we don't control the number of housing starts for the housing industry in the U.S.

[1710]

I think it would be a mistake for any government to think that they can be that directly involved in the economy and have a positive impact. Frankly, I think we should have learned that, actually, in the 1990s.

S. Fraser: I don't want to relive another millennium ago. I wasn't here, and if the minister wants to answer my questions with the '90s, we should switch places, because he's acting as an opposition critic would be doing. I just don't think that's appropriate. We have limited time here.

The minister has talked about the great investment climate he has made. That great investment climate — and I'm being facetious when I say that — has led to the point where Catalyst is refusing to pay their municipal taxes to communities like Port Alberni, Campbell River, North Cowichan and Powell River. Obviously, there's a problem.

In 2003, if we're going to take a step back, there was a policy called forestry revitalization, and the forest industry got everything they wanted from this government. The three amigos trip — remember that? I don't know how much money in tax breaks they got. Deregulation, union busting — you name it. They didn't invest, they didn't reinvest, and they didn't create jobs. All the promises that were laid out as the quid pro quo for this government's largesse to those companies and those CEOs didn't pay back any dividends that they were suggesting would come back.

As a matter of fact, with all that, there's apparently no commitment as a quid pro quo from government to provide some kind of reinvestment, technological innovation, investments so we'd stay competitive on the world market in the paper industry and in the forest industry in general for forest communities, and no commitment to create jobs — just some vague promise, which was broken subsequently.

That's the climate that the minister is referring to that has led us to a place where not only has the provincial taxpayer — and we're all the same taxpayer — given huge concessions and received nothing in return, now the municipal governments of these four communities, the city governments, are having taxes withheld.

When the provincial government reduced all of these taxes, it didn't lead to innovation in the industry. It did not lead to reinvestment in the industry, and it certainly didn't lead to job creation in the industry. We've had a record number of job losses and mill closures in this province. So that model may be somewhat wanting if you're a forest worker in the communities or if you are a mayor or a councillor in any of these forest communities that rely on their tax base.

Is the minister planning on doing anything around these court decisions, or is he going to let the court decide how the tax structure for municipal governments is to be adjudicated?

Hon. B. Bennett: I don't think the member meant to ask me whether I was going to interfere with the courts on the three outstanding actions. The company has asked in the three actions for the court to determine whether the three municipalities were unreasonable in the tax rates that they levied. That question has already been answered in one case, and there are three more actions to be heard. So no, we won't be interfering in the legal process.

More generally, though, to answer the member's question as best I can, we have engaged with UBCM on this issue. There was a resolution, I think, at UBCM asking the province to work with the communities. We're doing that. There is a committee struck. It is a very positive, very constructive atmosphere around that effort, and we will continue to work with local government in good faith in attempting to figure out what can be done for the pulp and paper industry about our competitive position.

[1715]

I think if the member wants to take a look at the past 8½ years in terms of the number of jobs that were created and the employment rate and the real disposable income, which I've always contended is probably the best indicator of how the economy is functioning, the member will find that the employment rate, even though it's down right now, is still higher, certainly where I come from, than anytime during the decade that the member prefers I don't mention.

Real disposable income has been up every single year that I've been an MLA. That's money in your jeans. I think that's important to everybody.
[ Page 1915 ]

Now, we do have a special problem with the forest industry, and we do have a particularly acute situation with the pulp and paper industry. It is just not a good time to be selling paper in the world today. We can lower their taxes. We can reduce their regulations. We can make B.C. a better place for them to do business. But we can't change the price of pulp, and we can't create markets for their paper. We'll continue to work with the communities and with UBCM on the tax rates. On the other side of it, we will continue to work with any community that wants to consider economic diversification.

I know that there are examples of communities in the province that were once completely reliant on one industry. Kimberley comes to mind, the city of Kimberley. They have, over the years, really made a tremendous effort to diversify their economy and become not quite so reliant on that industry.

I think that some of the communities are well aware of that. I don't mean to patronize those communities. I have talked to all the mayors, and I know that they're aware they need to work towards economic diversification — tourism and mining and whatever else is out there for them.

We are doing, I think, as a government, everything we can to set the table for success. Again, we don't control international markets, and we are somewhat at the mercy of a global recession right now, which we seem to be coming out of — hopefully, we are coming out of. It's not something where the province of British Columbia can wave a magic wand and make it go away.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I'm not too sure where to start on the response, my question to his response.

You mentioned tourism. Well, we've all seen the dismantling of Tourism B.C., a huge success, and the implementation of what amounts to a broken campaign promise on HST, which the tourism industry that the minister just referred to has said will be devastating to the industry.

I mean, the alternatives that the minister is talking about…. The communities are having their rugs pulled out, and their alternatives are looking slimmer and slimmer under this government. They're getting hit by every side of this, and attempts at diversification of the economies in some of these communities are being hampered by this government at this point in time.

I'll go to a specific here. The minister referred to specific tax breaks. Let's go with the provincial industrial tax breaks around the school taxes. They were quite significant for Catalyst. Can the minister quantify that, with the help of his staff? Thanks.

[1720]

Hon. B. Bennett: Sorry for the delay. We were trying to find the number. I know we have a number for the Catalyst situation in the four communities, and I would ask that the member not accept this number as gospel because I'm not 100 percent sure. But my recollection is that through the 50 percent school tax cut, they will save about $5 million a year between the four communities. Provincially it looks like…. Well, I'm not in a position to give him the provincial number either, but I'm pretty sure it's around $5 million that Catalyst will save as a result of those tax cuts.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister. That's close enough. I guess we can get the exact numbers. I can't remember at this point. I think this was in two phases. Am I correct? And if so, what was the timing on these? When did those occur?

Hon. B. Bennett: As of 2008 the school property tax rate for class 4 was reduced over two years to equal the business class — that's class 6 rate — providing a benefit of $24 million annually in 2009 and future years to B.C.'s major industrial property. That includes pulp mills, sawmills, ports and mines.

The following year, 2009, and beyond there was an industrial property tax credit created that will reduce the provincial school tax otherwise payable on major industrial and light industrial — that's class 5 properties — by 50 percent. That measure provides an additional benefit of $50 million annually to B.C.'s manufacturing, mining, forestry and other major and light industries. That was the sequence.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. Since those savings were realized by Catalyst, has there been any investment, new technology or job creation since those tax drops?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I don't know for sure whether or not these companies have bought any new machinery since we announced those tax reductions. What I do know is that the company we've referenced here and all of the pulp and paper companies in the province…. If they are surviving, it's by the skin of their teeth.

They are laying off people. They're cutting costs every which way that they can find to do. I would suggest to the member that in a general global downturn like this, one that seems to contain a very specific weakness for forest products, it's not surprising that forest companies wouldn't be out spending a bunch of money on things that they would perhaps otherwise like to do but can't do during this particular time.

[1725]

I know what the member is getting at. The member, I think, is suggesting that these tax reductions don't work and why bother doing them.

I don't want to put words in the member's mouth, but we just disagree on this side of the House. We think that when you reduce taxes for business and for individuals,
[ Page 1916 ]
you'll find that more businesses want to locate in that jurisdiction and more people want to live in that jurisdiction.

We stand on our record over the course of the last 8½ years. If you look at the trend lines for investment, for employment, for real disposable income, you'll find that, actually, the personal income tax cuts that we made, the corporate income tax cuts that we made and these other tax cuts just referenced that we made did, in fact, lead to considerable growth in our economy.

Our economy will grow again. These companies are not in a position right now to invest a bunch of money in new things — new technology or machinery. But if we stay with it, and we work with the communities, and we work with the industry, they will once again be in that position to create jobs in the forest sector in this province.

S. Fraser: The minister refers to…. The timing of these cuts predates the economic meltdown, so I'm not sure that his answer was hitting it on the head there.

In the last ten years what significant investment has, say, the company made in new technology and job creation?

Hon. B. Bennett: Could I ask the member for clarification? By "the company," does the member mean Catalyst?

S. Fraser: Yeah.

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I honestly don't know what Catalyst has been about, really, these last four or five years. I certainly hope the member is not piling on here on this particular company or any other company that has fallen on hard times. I think, frankly, that this is a time when we should be working as constructively and as collaboratively as we can with the major employers in the province.

I know that the member comes from Port Alberni. We want those companies that operate in Port Alberni to survive. We want to support them. We don't really want to undermine them and suggest that they're greedy and that they just take tax cuts and put them in their pocket and run off to Maui. That's not the approach, I think, that works here.

I think that these companies are in tough. There's no doubt about it. I suppose if you want to pick on them, that's your right to do that. But I think that we have to keep our eye on the ball here and focus on making sure that when we come out the other side of this global recession, we have a forest industry that's ready to go again, ready to employ the hundreds and thousands of people that they do and to be successful and pay taxes and help us pay for all the social services that we're all accustomed to here.

S. Fraser: I'm not picking on anyone. The company, Catalyst, is refusing to pay four communities' taxes. They have taken them to court. Despite the fact that the minister says that he's working on this, that and the other thing cooperatively, this is the situation we're now in.

The minister has just acknowledged that he has no idea what or if they've invested anything significantly in job creation, job retention, protecting workers or investments in new technology. Yet he was explaining the virtues of their government corporate tax cut policy when he doesn't know, apparently, what he's talking about.

That is a frustrating experience when you come from a community where you actually talk to the workers and find out what they're going through because of government policy or lack of understanding of what's even happening in these communities. The minister has just explained that he doesn't have any idea whether or not the tax cut policies that he was extolling had any benefit at all to anybody in this province — except costing the taxpayer. Now it's costing municipal taxpayers directly.

[1730]

What tangible resources is the minister bringing to bear to help these four communities? Is the minister paying for their court costs? Can he give me a number for how he's helping this community — a number of dollars?

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm sorry the member feels that way — that I don't know what I'm talking about. I think I know what I'm talking about, but the member is entitled to his opinion.

As I say, we'll continue to work on the policy end of things with UBCM. In fact, the communities themselves should get some credit for the fact that they have worked with the companies — because there's more than one company involved in this — to try and reduce their reliance on the industrial taxes.

I know that Port Alberni has done that, and North Cowichan has done that. Castlegar has done that, and the other communities involved have done that as well. They're going to have to continue to work away.

The member asked: "What have we done?" If the member wishes, I can list out the traffic fine revenues and the small community grants that have gone to all of these communities over the past several years. It totals in the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I don't know how much the member wants. In the case of Campbell River — which is facing at least one reluctant taxpayer, I guess; maybe two reluctant taxpayers — our government has been responsible for almost $12 million in infrastructure grants going into Campbell River here in the past eight years — some very, very large grants.

[D. Hayer in the chair.]

Quite recently, in 2009 the south Island highway improvement project. That was a $4 million project.

The Campbell River Airport runway extension. That was almost $3 million as an investment.
[ Page 1917 ]

There's a bunch of things. Traffic fine revenue. I mentioned that. Over the past five years Campbell River has received $2,143,737 in traffic fine revenue. All totalled, Campbell River, over the past eight years, has received almost $15 million.

I think that's pretty tangible. I talked to the mayor of Campbell River at UBCM more than once, and I have to tell you that he's a great guy. He actually told me that he thought I knew what I was talking about.

He came up and slapped me on the back and said, "You know, really appreciate those infrastructure grants and for the airport," and all the help that we're giving them. We know that they're struggling on this industrial taxation issue, but certainly the mayor of Campbell River was collaborative, and he was positive. He recognizes that we have to work together with these companies to find a way to strengthen our economy.

I've got a list of investments in Port Alberni, but rather than use up the member's time, if he wants me to read those out I'll have them here for him.

S. Fraser: Yeah, I guess I don't want to surprise the minister. I don't want to hear that. I wanted him to answer the question.

[1735]

If the minister is suggesting that parking fines were brought into place so that communities like Campbell River, Powell River, North Cowichan or Port Alberni could fight for their very existence in the taxation structure that is provincial in nature…. If that was the intent of the one-third, one-third, one-third infrastructure grants, to offset the communities battling to protect their municipal tax base so they can actually bring the services there, well, then the minister really doesn't understand the file at all.

I don't think that there was any understanding from the communities, because of ongoing infrastructure grants that occur from time to time with federal and provincial and municipal government involvement — one-third, one-third, one-third — that that was designed to help address fighting a court case that is threatening the municipal tax structure.

So I'll ask the question as specifically as I can. Lay this out now: in 2006 the former Forests Minister basically said to the forest industry that these communities were dining out on the municipal taxes levied by these communities. Then we fast forward to the throne speech — this was the pre-election throne speech — that made a veiled threat about the government going to change the taxation structure. Then we've got in July Catalyst Paper refusing to pay the municipal taxes. There's the timeline. The whole time….

I went to the same UBCM. The major issue at the UBCM was the disaster that we're walking into here, and where was the provincial government? So I don't need an answer suggesting how some other grants were designed to help these communities fight for their very existence as far as taxation goes.

Will the minister explain how he's assisting these communities? Specifically, is the ministry helping with their court costs?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, it might be helpful to the member for me to explain how the communities will collect the taxes. The short answer to the basic question: no, the province won't be subsidizing the communities in their legal actions. The communities will look after that. In fact, the communities have not asked us to do that. So let's be clear about that.

How it works is if any portion of the taxes is unpaid on July 3, 2009, there's a 10 percent penalty assessed to the principal immediately. Now, unpaid amounts at December 31, 2010, become taxes in arrears. Following that date, unpaid taxes are subject to interest at the prime rate of the principal banker to the province plus 3 percent. That rate is adjusted three times a year. The current rate is 5.25 percent.

The following December taxes become delinquent, the interest continues to accrue and the following September 2011 the property can be sold at tax sale for the outstanding taxes. Property owners have one year following the tax sale during which the property can be redeemed for the outstanding taxes plus interest. If not redeemed, ownership shifts to the municipality on September 2012.

That's the process for collecting outstanding taxes that every single municipality in the province has at its disposal. In fact, if the member was to fail to pay his property taxes, that's the same process that would be in place to collect taxes from him. Obviously, we hope on this side — and I know this is one thing that we can, I'm sure, agree on with the members opposite — that we don't get out that far before there is a resolution to this.

Obviously, we hope that the company has the wherewithal to pay its taxes much before that. But there is a legal process in place, and despite the temptation to want to suggest that we should somehow or other short-circuit that legal process, we can't do that, and we're not going to do that.

[1740]

We're going to let these court cases play out, and we will continue to work with the communities. We will not pay their legal expenses. They don't expect that; they have not asked for that. We will help them in other ways that I've already listed. With an economic recovery — I'm sure the member shares this hope with me — hopefully, the companies will see, after these court cases, that they should pay their taxes immediately, without being taken to court by the communities.

S. Fraser: Hon. Chair, welcome to the seat.

If the court cases are protracted — like, we've got one decision; however, there is a spectre of an appeal — then
[ Page 1918 ]
these four communities are out a whole bunch of money, millions of dollars, from their tax base.

Now, under the Local Government Act, as far as I know, local governments are not allowed to go into deficit, unlike the situation here. You can't bring forward a bill to go into deficit and then bring in another one to go into more deficit. You're not allowed to do that at the municipal level.

So has there been any discussion? Is there any plan for assisting these communities should — hopefully, this doesn't occur — they get to the point where they can no longer provide the services, or they're running the potential for a deficit by year-end fiscal?

Hon. B. Bennett: The judge in the case has apparently indicated that he plans to rule on the other three cases fairly expeditiously. I don't have, obviously, any control over that, but we're expecting results, decisions, from those three cases certainly in the near term, let's say. I can't be any more specific than that.

We have been in pretty regular contact with all of the communities involved. We are talking to them about some what-if's, but it's premature, until we know what the courts rule on these cases, for us to get too excited about things. Let's let the legal action be resolved first, and then we'll know what the courts have to say about the reasonableness of the industrial tax rates levied by the communities.

I don't want to get into what-if's here in an estimates debate. Certainly, I can assure the member that if we get into the kind of situation that the member describes, we will definitely be there for those communities. He has my word on that.

S. Fraser: Thank you to the minister for that. The communities could be between a rock and a hard place if the worst scenario happens here, and I appreciate the minister recognizing that.

Is there a plan? In February the statement was made in the throne speech — the first throne speech, pre-election — that the government would work with the UBCM to develop new legislation. Obviously, I went to UBCM, and this was the major issue there.

There didn't appear to have been any discussions between September and the UBCM. Am I mistaken there? Can the minister let me know what meetings happened following the February throne speech statement that there would be specific changes made to the tax system?

Hon. B. Bennett: Okay. I'm going to say this again. I said it earlier, but it's important that we distinguish between the statement in the throne speech that dealt with a totally different situation…. It dealt with the situation where government saw some communities clawing back, I believe it was, the school tax reductions. The member is correct. There was a statement in the throne speech that government was going to take a look at that. That is separate from the overall industrial tax rate discussion that the province is having with the UBCM.

[1745]

But in both cases, both of those issues, I have talked directly with the UBCM executive about those issues and other issues. I talked with individual members of the executive, of course, at the UBCM convention. Staff has discussed these issues with UBCM as well, actually, since the UBCM convention.

As I said in the beginning of this debate, our intention is to work collaboratively and constructively with communities through UBCM. Our intention is not just to announce one day that we're going to do something, without having the appropriate kind of discussions with local government.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister. I raised the question because since 2006, according to my documentation, ministers of the Crown have laid out the spectre that local governments were dining out on…. Obviously, the way he was stating it, that was inappropriate. Then we had the throne speech, where it seemed to reaffirm that.

Now we're in a position where…. To be fair to the government, I mean, if they were recognizing there was a taxation problem around the industrial tax base as early as 2006…. Here we are in 2009, this money is being withheld from communities, and they're in court.

As we've established, there's no assistance from the province in these four communities facing a court challenge around a provincial tax structure. It was with that in mind that I asked the question. Is there a ramification for the municipal tax structure based on, potentially, what comes out of these court decisions? How far-ranging could that be?

Hon. B. Bennett: The question, I guess, is: if one of the three court cases outstanding goes against the municipality, could there be far-reaching implications? I can't answer that, because it would depend on what the judge said. If it was some sort of a technicality involving process that the municipality used to arrive at their decision about tax rates, it could be just simply a legal decision that has no sort of fundamental implications.

All I can deal with is what we know. We know that in the one decision we have that the judge indicated that the answer to the question as to whether or not the tax rate arrived at by the local government was reasonable…. He said: "Yes, it is. It's reasonable." He also indicated that the process for getting to that decision was transparent and was rational.

He did make some comments about the importance of local government recognizing major employers and their role in sustaining small communities, but the gist of the
[ Page 1919 ]
decision was that the community had acted rationally and reasonably in determining what the tax rate was for that company.

[1750]

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I looked through the decision, and I don't — I'm not a lawyer — understand all the legal ramifications. But we have three more cases here that are still undecided, and I'm hoping that the minister is right that we get some clarity on this fairly soon.

I heard this at the UBCM from mayors who had no forest industries — paper industry — within their communities. They, with their wisdom and local knowledge, saw that the potential for this court decision going a certain way could have ramifications on all municipal taxation. If indeed the court was to find that there was a problem — that they saw in favour of Catalyst, for instance — with how local governments adjudicate taxation, municipal or otherwise, that could be a precedent.

Has there been any discussion about the implications for the municipal tax system that we have in this province? I'm sure I'm not the only one who has speculated or heard speculation on this.

Hon. B. Bennett: We have not spent any time or resources analyzing something that hasn't happened. We will wait for the courts to make their decisions and decide what we have learned from that when that happens.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I am, reluctantly, going to move off of the industrial taxation issue, just because we have so little time here. We could spend a lot more time on that, and I know there are a lot more questions out there that local governments and mayors have asked me about this and asked me to bring forward on their behalf into this process known as estimates.

So if I may — and I don't know if it requires a staff change here, so I'll just let you know — I'd like to delve into infrastructure funding. That may or may not be involving the same staff members.

I'm looking at issues around the infrastructure stimulus fund and the Building Canada fund. I find this somewhat confusing — the way the moneys were announced.

There seem to be a few different takes on how much money was committed for the province through this. I recognize that it's federal and provincial. But can the minister give me any numbers? How much was the total amount that B.C…? Of the federal announcement, how much of that was supposed to come to the province of British Columbia? I know it varied from province to province.

Hon. B. Bennett: Could I just get clarification from the member? Is the member referring to the most recent announcement by the federal and provincial governments on infrastructure generally? Is that the announcement that the member wants to discuss in detail?

S. Fraser: No, actually — and thanks to the minister for that. I'll give you clarification here. According to the estimates of the UBCM, there was still approximately $200 million remaining in B.C.'s portion of the federal money from the…. That would probably be from the infrastructure stimulus fund. The estimate made through UBCM as B.C.'s share was to be, I think, $520 million in total.

[1755]

It's unclear whether there's more money from the fund. If you use the math that UBCM has come up with, there's still at least $200 million outstanding that B.C. has not grabbed onto yet, if that's of any help.

Hon. B. Bennett: I'll start with the best explanation that I've got. The member is correct. It's complicated, and there are a lot of figures, so the member may want to write some of these down. The initial intake closed on September 30, 2008. By April of 2009 there was a total of 41 projects that were awarded $58.5 million in provincial dollars — of course, that equated to $110.4 million when you add in the federal component — supporting total project costs in that first intake of $222.7 million.

During that first intake our ministry saw 28 projects approved for $38.9 million in provincial funding. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure saw 13 projects approved for around $16.3 million in provincial funding.

The member should also know that the Building Canada fund supplements an existing flood program, and $25 million in provincial funding was awarded to flood mitigation infrastructure during that initial intake.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

In January of 2009 in the federal budget there was an estimated $66 million that was identified as a top-up to the original Building Canada fund. During September of 2009 the Minister of Finance approved an additional $82 million in provincial funding to top up the Building Canada fund and the infrastructure stimulus fund. That brought the total provincial investment in the Building Canada fund to $201 million.

The second intake closed on May 1, 2009. On September 24, 2009, an additional 84 projects were awarded $116.5 million in provincial funding. Totals: $233 million in the combined senior government funding. During this second intake, the Building Canada fund…. Our ministry saw 18 projects approved for $29.9 million in provincial funding. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure saw seven projects approved for $22 million in provincial funding.
[ Page 1920 ]

With the top-up funding, our ministry saw 13 projects approved for $7½ million in provincial funding. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure saw 35 projects approved for $52.8 million in provincial funding. We also, again in that second intake, had some flood program awards as well — 11 projects, to be specific. They were approved for $4.1 million in provincial funding.

So that goes over the two intakes of the Building Canada fund, and I hope that was helpful to the member.

[1800]

S. Fraser: Welcome to the seat, hon. Chair.

Not entirely helpful. The minister acknowledged that this is complex. I mean, this came in a series of announcements. Now if I go back to the 2009 federal budget, they brought out…. Their announcement was $4 billion over two years; that's from '09-10 and '10-11. That was allocated to the new infrastructure stimulus fund only, I think. That was the specific fund, just the infrastructure stimulus fund.

That was the new fund related to economic stimulus, and it was to be allocated to the provinces. I think it was largely, if not totally, on a population basis, a per-capita basis. By the calculations that I've seen, the B.C. share of this would be approximately $520 million.

You combine that with the required matching provincial money — the number that has been arrived at that has been used, certainly extensively by UBCM, and they've got people working numbers there that stand by this. The total amount for the stimulus fund amounts to $1.04 billion. The projects all had to be eligible, and to be eligible, they must be completed by March 31, 2011.

I guess that's where I want to get at: that $520 million that we want to be able to access for economic stimulus to get us through this recession. If the minister could comment when he gets a chance, thanks.

Hon. B. Bennett: I suspect that the member knows this, but maybe I should say it anyhow just in case he doesn't. The infrastructure money available from the federal government is shared.

Not only does some of it come through this ministry, but a fair portion of it also goes through the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, and I believe that some of it ends up going through the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General when it comes to flood mitigation projects. So I think there are three ministries in total that are involved here.

I'll see if I can clarify, for the member's benefit, some of these numbers. The infrastructure stimulus fund provincial allocation was $520 million, and the Building Canada fund component that was remaining before this last announcement, which doesn't include what was announced last spring, was $52½ million — $52.5 million. That top-up to the Building Canada fund that I mentioned earlier was $65 million or $66 million.

[1805]

I can tell the member that all of those three numbers — the stimulus amount of $520 million, the $52½ million remaining in the Building Canada fund and the $65 million top-up — will be matched, province to federal, dollar for dollar.

I can tell the member that, from the $520 million we have approved through this ministry so far — I'm talking about community-based infrastructure like water and sewer — we've approved 68 projects worth about $115 million. I don't have all the details on the projects approved by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. I don't know whether they've done their estimates yet or not, but certainly, the minister there will have all of that information.

I think that it's important for me to point out that a lot of the projects that are approved by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure are located within communities and are of great benefit to communities. You know, when you realign an arterial road, a major highway, going through a town like Kimberley or the work that has been done in so many of our communities and is being done, it usually is something that the local government and the community are very excited about.

I can give the member assurance that the $520 million has been or will be matched; the $52½ million, the same; and the $65 million top-up, the same.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. Now, as of the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention, by their estimates, only 25 percent of the federal moneys had been committed, and the province has yet to secure the remainder. Now, there's a deadline on this, and it's a federal requirement. I don't know how etched in stone the federal requirement is, but it's March of 2011. The projects have to be substantially completed.

I know that the Premier initially made a promise to fast-track all of the infrastructure stimulus money, but we were dead last by the time we came to the convention, as far as the provinces, to actually secure this money. Can the minister comment how that came about?

Hon. B. Bennett: Hon. Chair, I do think it's necessary to correct the member. I work quite closely with UBCM, and my staff works even more closely with them, and they are not saying anything about us only matching 25 percent of the federal dollars. If that statement was made — and it well may have been made — it would have been made prior to the last announcement in September about all of the infrastructure projects. My understanding is that UBCM is actually quite happy with all of the announcements that were made.

The member is correct about when projects have to be done for some of the federal-provincial programs. I think that the stimulus fund projects must be done by March 2011. I think that the top-up projects — the $65 million worth of projects — also have to be done
[ Page 1921 ]
by March 2011. The $52½ million and the rest of the Building Canada fund do not have to be done by March 2011. I think that the date for them is 2014. We have communities that receive those grants and will have that length of time to complete.

I know that staff in this ministry and staff in the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure worked very, very closely with applicants, local government applicants, to determine whether they could get their projects done by March 2011 or if they needed until 2014.

Nobody that was given a grant told us that they would not be able to complete the project on time. So we're anticipating that all the projects will be completed on time because the communities have told us they will be able to have them completed on time.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that clarification. I don't know if it came out that way, but I just want to make sure, on the record, that I wasn't accusing the local governments of not being able to complete or putting in incomplete proposals.

[1810]

I need some more information. We as a province, British Columbia, were dead last in getting the shovel-ready projects going. The money was flowing to other provinces in a way that simply wasn't happening in British Columbia. The economic stimulus needs to hit the ground quickly, according to the Premier's previous statements, and that's why it was going to be fast-tracked.

I guess the question is: why…? We were so late coming out of the gate in getting these funds, compared to a lot of the rest of Canada, that it might actually make some of the larger-scale projects ineligible because they maybe could not be completed, not because of communities not doing their due diligence in their application, but because the money didn't come out in a timely way. Can the minister comment, please?

Hon. B. Bennett: Hon. Chair, I have heard the opposition characterize British Columbia's performance on getting the infrastructure dollars out as being slow. In fact, that's not correct. In the case of both the Building Canada fund and the stimulus infrastructure program, we got considerable dollars out the door early in 2009.

I know that in the case of the Building Canada fund, by April we had $58½ million in provincial funding out the door. That's $110.4 million between the federal government and the provincial government. The total project costs that were announced in April, then, were almost $223 million.

In fact, we were one of the earlier jurisdictions in the country to get that out like that. In addition to the Building Canada announcement, we also announced $134.7 million, so almost $135 million, in provincial money back in April of 2009.

You know, the province held an election in May. I can understand how the members opposite would just forget about what happened before the last election as if it never happened, but it did happen. We got a lot of money out the door to communities in April, and I think our record on that speaks for itself.

The Chair: Member, noting the hour.

S. Fraser: Hon. Chair, I appreciate that.

It was not my statement. It was the president of the UBCM that made the statement at the UBCM convention, suggesting that the government was not acting in a quick way, that we were not accessing the money in a timely way. I was referring to that.

I'll just finish off by stating that, actually, the B.C. government stated — I was going to probe this, but I'll wait until tomorrow — that the reason for the timing was because of the negotiations between the federal government over whether provincial dollars would come out of operating or capital funds. It was a funding….

There was an acknowledgment by government that there was a problem getting it out, and the problem was dealing with basically how to get the money from the federal government. That's why we were dead last. I'll just leave it at that, and the minister can respond if he wishes to, or we can pick this up tomorrow morning.

Hon. B. Bennett: Certainly, I never mind being held to account for using the taxpayers' dollars prudently.

I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts and progress on the Ministry of Community and Rural Development and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:15 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2009: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175