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 23, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 9, Number 2

[ Page 2649 ]

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2009

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

C. James: I have three guests who I'm pleased to introduce today: Matthew Payne, the artistic producer for Theatre SKAM; Sarah Jane Peltzer, actor and singer; and Edna Joyce, who's here from the Victoria Choral Society. They're here to show their support for investments in funding for arts, culture and heritage. Would the House please make them welcome.

Tributes

ART COWIE

Hon. G. Campbell: I rise today simply to inform the House of the passing of Art Cowie, former MLA for Vancouver-Quilchena. Art was a passionate observer of public life in British Columbia and worked tirelessly as a park commissioner, as a city councillor and as an MLA to improve the quality of life for people in communities all over the province.

He was an early advocate of sustainable communities, communities that actually worked with our natural environment to enhance the quality of life for those who lived here. He was struck with a sudden illness in October, and unfortunately, he passed away just recently. I hope the House will take the time to send our condolences to the entire Cowie family.

Introductions by Members

L. Popham: I would like to take this opportunity to welcome to the House my wonderful brother Guy Mckintuck and his friend, Nancy Friesen. Guy is a firefighter from Delta. Please make them welcome.

Hon. R. Hawes: Today in the gallery we have a number of what I consider to be, and I'm sure all of us consider to be, very important people to British Columbia. They're from the mining industry.

They're headed by Pierre Gratton from the Mining Association of British Columbia, along with Zoe Carlson from the Mining Association of B.C.; Peter Holbeck, VP of exploration with Copper Mountain; Glen Wonders, VP, Terrane Metals — that's the Mount Milligan project; Scott Jones, VP, Taseko Mines; Pierre Lebel, chairman, Imperial Metals — that's Red Chris; Doug Smith, president and CEO of First Coal; Craig Dirk, COO of Western Canadian Coal; Allen Wright, president and CEO of the Coal Association of Canada; Brian Abraham; Fraser Milner; David McLelland, director with the Association for Mineral Exploration; Dave Sharples, chairman of the Mining Suppliers Association of British Columbia; and Kathy Pomeroy, director of environment for Western Canadian Coal.

Between all of these folks, they are responsible for thousands and thousands of jobs and thousands and thousands of hip operations in British Columbia. I'd like all of us to make them welcome and thank them for the work they do.

L. Krog: Joining us in the gallery today is a strong supporter of arts and culture in our province. I'd like the House to welcome Junko Sakamoto, executive director of the Assembly of B.C. Arts Councils.

Hon. M. Polak: Today in the gallery we are joined by a constituent of mine, who might prove very useful to this Legislature. Judi Vankevich is the national director of the Canadian Project for Manners and Civility and is best known as Judy the manners lady, Canada's award-winning singer, educator and entertainer.

Her mandate for the past year and a half has been to travel across the province as part of an entertaining program called Building Team B.C. — training the families and children and teens of B.C. in multicultural hospitality and manners as a proactive way of dealing with crime and racism and to help inspire B.C. to become the friendliest and safest province to ever host the Olympics. May the House please make her welcome.

M. Karagianis: Again, on the theme of the arts that we have going on our side, I would like to introduce some guests in the House today from the Victoria Choral Society — the president Mary Chu and musician Wendy Stofer. And from Intrepid Theatre, a good friend and colleague, Ian Case, the general manager. Please make them welcome.

J. McIntyre: I'm delighted to be joined in Victoria today…. At the Legislature with us are two friends, supporters, constituents from Whistler: John Nadeau and Mary Scott. John is the regional branch manager for the TD Bank in Whistler and volunteers for the Community Foundation of Whistler and as treasurer for the Saint John Ambulance provincial council. Mary works at the Whistler Eye Clinic and has donated a lot of her time for the brand-new sliding centre in Whistler. I would like the House to please make them feel most welcome here in Victoria.

D. Routley: Chemainus is known as "the little town that did," and that's because it has revitalized and resurrected itself after great challenges in losing its mill. One of
[ Page 2650 ]
the main forces in that revitalization has been our arts community generally. The town is populated by dozens of murals of the history of the area. The last one was unveiled just last year.

[1340]

A large part of that arts community is the Chemainus theatre. From the Chemainus Theatre Festival Society, the artistic director, Mark DuMez and the managing director, Randy Huber join us. They're both here in order to promote funding for the Chemainus Festival. If any of the members or their families are looking for a great show, the Christmas show at the Chemainus theatre, Anne of Green Gables, will be featured in the community over the next few weeks.

I'd like us all to make them welcome to the Legislature and to support the Chemainus Theatre Festival.

M. Sather: There are four members from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows here in the gallery today: Jim Bradshaw, John Castiello, Mike Gildersleeve and Yukiko Tanaka. They're here to discuss with government an important issue in Blue Mountain in our community. Would you help me welcome them to the House.

M. Dalton: I'd like to recognize in the House today Terri Rainey. Terri is the past constituency president for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. Would the House please make her feel welcome.

R. Fleming: I want to introduce a number of representatives from the arts and culture sector in greater Victoria today. With us is Scott Walker, who's the coordinator of the ProArt Alliance. Accompanying him are Melissa Blank, who is an actor locally; Juliana Saxton, who's an actor, director and educator in our community; as well as Megan Newton, who is the administrator for Theatre BOMBUS; and Judith McDowell, who is artistic director with Target Theatre and a board member of the PUENTE Theatre Society. Would the House please make all of these guests feel welcome here.

Tributes

MARY SMITH

D. Routley: I would like the House to help me remember a remarkable young woman. Her name was Mary Smith. She was 28 years old when, very unfortunately, H1N1 shortened her life this past week.

Mary Smith was an extraordinary young woman who suffered a developmental disability, but that didn't slow her down. She and her parents owned a farm. Every weekend she could be found in the farmers' market selling sausages and meat products that they produced.

Her parents spent their entire lives preparing Mary to be without them, and so very sadly, now they are without her. She was an extraordinary supporter of the Cowichan Capitals hockey team. They raised an honorary jersey in her name last week. She became a friend to many of us, including me.

We're all so very sad that Mary has succumbed to this illness. She was one of those people who was absolutely present when you met her. She was absolutely there, and she was a wonderful young woman. I hope the House can help me extend condolences to her family and to the community.

Introductions by Members

Hon. K. Falcon: I have two groups of individuals I'd like to recognize, Mr. Speaker. The first is John and Bev Bandstra. John and Bev Bandstra are part of the Bandstra Transportation group, John in particular.

This has been a family business that many of us will be aware of that's been involved in British Columbia's economy since 1955. It's got its roots in northern B.C. In fact, it started out in Smithers, British Columbia, and through its 150 employees continues to provide a very high level of moving services right across the province. I'd ask that the House please make them both welcome.

I'd also like to welcome three pharmacy students who are here with us today that are doing their four-week rotation at the drug use optimization branch of the pharmaceutical services division. I would like the House to please welcome Arden Barry, Trana Hussaini and Amneet Aulakh, who are with us today. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

L. Reid: I have lovely guests in the gallery today. There's Andy Baxter. There's Barbara Penty. There is my dear daughter Olivia Reid-Friesen and her friend Lauren Baxter and Marg Robbins. Those lovely girls play glorious softball together, and I'd ask the House to please make them very welcome.

[1345]

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

CHINESE-CANADIAN
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS

R. Lee: Yesterday I attended the celebration of the 70th anniversary of the Yue Shan Society in Vancouver. Nearly 1,000 British Columbians originating from the county of Panyu, now part of Guangzhou, their friends and community leaders came out to a gala dinner to celebrate this auspicious occasion. Guangzhou is Vancouver's sister city and the capital city of B.C.'s sister province, Guangdong, China.

There are many other county associations in the Chinese-Canadian community. The Shon Yee Benevolent
[ Page 2651 ]
Association was formed in 1914 to help people from Zhongshan County, the birthplace of the founder of the Republic of China, Dr. Sun Yat-sen.

Sometimes several societies were established from the same county to further differentiate interests. Also, from the Zhongshan county are the Vancouver Zhongshan Alliance Association, Vancouver Zhongshan Secondary School Alumni Association, Zhongshan Hoo Tow Society, Zhongshan Lung Jen Benevolent Association and Hang Mei Society.

Many family or clan societies contribute to the community as well, including the Chin Wing Chun Tong Society, Lee's Association of Canada, Wong's Benevolent Association, Cheung's Association, Mah's Society, Leung's Benevolent Association and Yee Fong Toy Society.

Members of this House may be familiar with some larger organizations which embrace the entire community — for example, SUCCESS, the Chinese Benevolent Association of Vancouver, the Chinese Cultural Centre and the Chinese Freemasons in Vancouver. However, many more Chinese-Canadian businesses, athletic, recreational and service organizations can be found all over B.C., especially in Metro Vancouver.

I would like to ask the House to join me in recognizing the hundreds of Chinese-Canadian non-profit organizations for their contributions to our province's economy, trade, culture, social services and charities.

david vickers

C. James: I rise today to mark the passing of a great British Columbian. David Vickers was an accomplished lawyer, esteemed judge and a passionate advocate whose work truly embodied the words "public servant."

As a lawyer, he fought for the rights of those with physical and developmental disabilities. As a justice of the Supreme Court, he spoke out about the challenges facing those with mental illness and addictions in our justice system. Some of you may know that David Vickers served as Deputy Attorney General under Premier Dave Barrett. He also made several forays into B.C. politics, including a bid for the leadership of the NDP in 1984 and as an NDP candidate for Saanich and the Islands in 1986.

While I have no doubt that David would have made an incredible contribution to this Legislature, David's work since then has left a mark on our province. Most recently David became known by many in my community for his work on homelessness. He was a member of the Greater Victoria Coalition to End Homelessness and just this last month participated in Project Connect, an event to help raise awareness about homelessness in Victoria. This was despite his diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, which ultimately took his life.

David's many contributions to our province cannot be measured by the number of cases he tried, the number of decisions he penned as a judge or the countless hours he dedicated. As a former partner and colleague said about Vickers: "Social justice wasn't a cause he adopted. It was who he was and how he lived."

British Columbians from all walks of life have benefited from the passion and the commitment that David brought to his work. He will be missed, but B.C. is a better place because of David Vickers. I would ask the House to join me in expressing our condolences to the Vickers family.

ABORIGINAL YOUTH INTERNSHIP PROGRAM

J. McIntyre: A few weeks ago, I joined the Ministers of Citizen Services and Aboriginal Relations as well as leaders from the first nations community for the aboriginal youth internship program's completion ceremony here in Victoria.

We spent the evening honouring the past year's interns as they marked the completion of the '08-09 internship program, and we welcomed this year's new interns, the third group. As I'm sure the House remembers, the aboriginal youth internship program, run by the B.C. Public Service Agency, was created based on a dialogue with government, aboriginal communities, aboriginal youth groups and aboriginal leadership.

It's designed to develop professional skills and leadership abilities through a nine-month placement in a ministry or government agency, followed by a three-month placement in a selected B.C. aboriginal agency.

[1350]

The program offers strong structure, learning opportunities and ongoing support and guidance to all interns and participants. The First Nations Leadership Council provides ongoing support, as does as Métis Nation British Columbia.

I would like to recognize Sasha Hobbs, the program lead who has been with the program for all three years, for all her hard work and dedication and the passion she clearly brings to the job.

On May 29 the program and all those involved suffered the tragic loss of one of its interns, Marshal Boucher. He was a much-loved member of his community, and the award that the interns bestowed on Anthony Mack will ensure that Marshal's name lives on.

Congratulations to all the interns, and best of luck in their future journeys, wherever they take you. To the new interns: work hard and have fun. I would just like to name the graduates, because I think they deserve recognition for their significant achievement: Courteney Adolph, Carmella Alexis, Nicole Big Sorrel Horse, Mikah Fox, Candice George, Kristi Jinnouchi, Kristina Leon, Sashia Leung, Dawn Lindsay-Burns, Kelsey Louie, Anthony Mack, Danielle Myles, Chris Nelson, Chris Roberts, Sarah Robinson, Scarlet Sounders, Cedar Shackelly and Toni Williams.
[ Page 2652 ]

UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION
ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

M. Elmore: I rise to recognize the 20th anniversary of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, adopted by the United Nations on November 20, 1989, and ratified in Canada in 1991.

The convention sets out the fundamental rights of children. The idea behind the convention is simple. Every child has the right to a healthy, secure upbringing; to basic levels of nutrition and education; to play and rest; and to have their point of view respected when it's appropriate.

I had the opportunity to attend an event here in Victoria at the Metropolitan church, which was hosted by Success by 6 Victoria and south Vancouver Island. I'd like to recognize Jan White and all members of the Council for Partners who put on this event. They invited the performer Raffi Cavoukian to perform for parents and to actually talk about his philosophy, the child-honouring philosophy to put children first, a child-first approach to healing communities, restoring ecosystems and creating a sustainable future. Also, we had a great performance by the choir kids on that night.

I'd just like to recognize article 27 of the convention, which states that recognizing the right of all children to live and have adequate access to physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development, and also to join in the commitment of all the children, the parents and providers of early childhood education working towards eliminating poverty for children and also recognizing article 18, which recognizes the importance of providing comprehensive child care for children and also early learning opportunities.

MINING INDUSTRY IN B.C.

R. Sultan: As we recognize the leaders of the mining industry in the Legislature this afternoon, all of us need to understand the importance of this key economic driver, creating jobs and wealth right across our province.

Recently a journalist ranked the ten strongest companies in B.C. Eight of them were mining companies. If asked to list the industries most represented among the top 50 companies, many would guess telecommunications or forestry. In fact, the mining industry represents almost two-thirds.

Many are giants on the world stage. Teck's market cap is almost three times larger than CPR's. Goldcorp's is three time Teck's. We've all heard of Telus and the Royal Bank. How many of us know First Quantum Minerals, Quadra Mining or Silver Wheaton?

We seldom give them the respect they deserve, and we don't always make it easy for them to do business right here at home. Having two parallel federal and provincial permitting processes doesn't make much sense, and first nations negotiations are seldom simple. Aggressive pricing by port and rail operators is another steep hurdle, but government is trying to help.

The Highway 37 powerline will soon be a reality. New projects are underway: Copper Mountain, Red Chris, Mount Milligan, Prosperity, New Afton and South Central near Chetwynd, just to name some of them. These new projects build on the solid employment base of Teck's 40 percent share of the world market for steel-making coal, an incredible achievement. They will generate thousands of new jobs — union jobs frequently, I might point out for the folks opposite — for British Columbians for decades to come.

[1355]

All MLAs should encourage their communities and their federal MPs to get on board, pitch in and help these projects succeed.

B.C. FEDERATION OF LABOUR

K. Conroy: The B.C. Federation of Labour represents more than half a million workers through over 50 affiliated unions and more than 800 locals working in every aspect of the B.C. economy. Established in 1956, the B.C. Fed, as it is most commonly known, has a long and proud history of fighting for the rights of all working people. The goals of the federation are best exemplified by its slogan: "What we desire for ourselves we wish for all."

They bring together the majority of unions in B.C. to provide a single voice on workers' rights. Every year hundreds of rank-and-file trade union members elected from their locals across B.C. gather in Vancouver to set the direction of the labour movement. This year the 53rd convention in their history as a modern federation started this morning at the Vancouver convention centre.

Today's B.C. Federation of Labour is actually the second organization by that name. The first was formed in 1910 as workers across the province united in a single body to pursue political change in the provincial Legislature. That first federation was worn down by the battles and divisions that afflicted working people during the period between the First and Second world wars, particularly the Great Depression. But by 1956 the need for unity was obvious, and the two main labour centrals of that area joined forces to create today's B.C. Fed.

The fed is made up of a number of officers and staff, but I want to make special mention of two of them: Jim Sinclair, the president who has led the Fed since 1999, and Angie Shira, the secretary-treasurer — a position held since 1989 and the first woman to ever hold that position — who last November was re-elected to serve a tenth full two-year term.

These two officers are an example of the incredible women and men who serve on behalf of all working
[ Page 2653 ]
people in this province. I want to thank them as well as all the other officers for their commitment to the cause of working people.

Oral Questions

STAFFING AT SENIORS FACILITIES

C. James: It was over two years ago that I stood in this House to raise the concern around the neglected seniors at Victoria's Beacon Hill Villa. This past Friday 200 employees, including nursing staff, at Beacon Hill Villa were told they will no longer receive their wages from the facility's subcontractor.

Today the facilities operator indicated they may be willing to offer a temporary fix, but in the meantime seniors and their families spent the entire weekend concerned about what's next, worried about care at the facility, where they would go — going through instability that they do not deserve.

My question is to the Minister of Health. For years concerns have been raised about a crisis in seniors care. Can the minister explain what good the constant flipping of staff and a revolving door of subcontractors does to care for seniors?

Hon. K. Falcon: Naturally, I'm always concerned when there's any kind of contractual dispute or public sector labour strike, whether in the public or the private spheres. Anytime there's a disruption, of course you ought to be concerned about it.

The fact of the matter is that this is a contractual dispute that the operator was having with the subcontractor. It was real — no question about that. Licensing staff over the weekend visited the facilities to make sure that care wasn't being impacted. I'm informed it was not. I think that's very positive.

I also understand, to the member's point…. She's correct in pointing out that the operator has entered into an agreement with the Hospital Employees Union employees. I understand they're going to be working directly for the operator at the same wages and benefits that they were receiving before.

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

C. James: The minister left out one fact — that it was, in fact, this government that created the chaos, through Bill 29 and Bill 21, that is causing the problems we see for seniors right now.

It's not only Beacon Hill Villa. Residents and staff at Nanaimo Seniors Village and at Dufferin Care Centre also went through the same chaos over the weekend — seniors and families wondering about their care, wondering what was going on.

Now it looks like the Lodge on 4th in Ladysmith and facilities in North Delta and Vancouver may be next. Again, my question is to the Minister of Health. Will he admit today that when he stripped away the rights of health care workers, he also stripped away the care for the seniors that they serve?

[1400]

Hon. K. Falcon: I know that the Leader of the Opposition likes to create a situation where she can try and pretend that everything is going wrong in every sector of the health field. That's simply not the case. The fact of the matter is that what we have done is actually build 6,000 new state-of-the-art seniors residences right across the province of British Columbia.

We were investing in record levels for residential care — up 40 percent since 2001. You know, for this member to…. That's over $100 million this year alone.

The fact of the matter is that on a massive system like this, unfortunately, there are bound to be occasional disputes, contractual issues that come up just like in the public sector. Unfortunately, there are occasional strikes at times when people withdraw services, and that is unfortunate in both cases. The issue for me is to ensure that the seniors are getting the care they deserve. That's why, as I say, licensing staff are going through those facilities to make sure the care is being provided, as it is.

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

C. James: If the minister had been paying attention, he would recognize that this isn't an isolated incident. This happens over and over and over again, for the last eight years, under the B.C. Liberals when it comes to seniors care.

The staff in those facilities are more than simply numbers. Staff provide care and are family for many of the seniors in those care homes.

It was this B.C. Liberal government that brought in Bill 29. It was this government that tore up contracts negotiated in good faith. It was this government that moved to privatize our public health care system. The consequences can be seen all across British Columbia including right here, steps from the Legislature, at Beacon Hill Villa.

My question again is to the Minister of Health. Why is he still refusing to act to stop the neglect of seniors in Victoria, in Nanaimo, in Port Coquitlam, in Ladysmith — all across this province? Why does this government refuse to make seniors care a priority?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, it is a priority. It's one of the reasons we've added over 6,000 new beds right across the province. It's another reason why we rehabilitated or completely renovated another 6,000 in addition to that.
[ Page 2654 ]

You know, sometimes the Leader of the Opposition allows her rhetoric to get ahead of her. I would refer the member to the Nanaimo Daily News — front page, actually — on December 4, 1999, when it was announced that "a partnership between two private corporations and the Central Vancouver Island health region will open 125 new multilevel-care beds in Nanaimo within two years. The new project will see Retirement Concepts of Vancouver partner with the region to build a new state-of-the-art facility."

Here's the best part. It goes on to say: "The beds are being constructed under a public-private partnership model as a result of a 1997 policy adopted by the province that demands such partnership be explored when planning new health care facilities." That was the NDP government.

A. Dix: Ten times — ten times — the workers of just these three care homes alone have been hired and fired — hired and fired, hired and fired. Ten times. That tells you something about the system that this government set up that creates instability in this sector and undermines seniors care. That's what it says.

Will the minister take action today? Will he take action today? Seniors have been jerked around by this government long enough. This policy that gives health care workers fewer rights than virtually any other worker in British Columbia has led to this chaos in health care.

[1405]

Will the minister acknowledge today that the chaos caused by Bill 29 and Bill 94 has damaged seniors care in British Columbia? Will he take action to restore successorship rights to health care workers in British Columbia?

Hon. K. Falcon: The only chaos is in the fevered imagination of the NDP opposition. There have been far fewer labour disruptions in the last eight years than there ever were under the NDP government. I can tell you that, Mr. Speaker.

You know, I find it interesting that the very company that they are apoplectic about is the very company that they in fact…. That critic was the chief of staff of the government of the day that decided they would enter into a private-public partnership with Retirement Concepts in the Nanaimo Seniors Village.

It's interesting how their position has changed, apparently very dramatically, since they were in power. But the fact is that we have got an exceptional record of investing in seniors care. I'm proud of that record. It's record levels of funding and record levels of new units.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, let's see what the minister is proud of — the lowest care standards in the country, apparently…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: …according to Statistics Canada. Oh, I know. I know. The Harper government — they're part of some sort of socialist conspiracy.

The lowest care standards in the country — that's what they brought to bear. A health care system that denies workers basic rights, which has led to the chaos — ten total layoffs at this facility alone. It's a disgrace, and the minister should be ashamed of it.

Can the minister explain how the constant turmoil and turnover of staff…? And you know what, hon. Speaker? The minister talks about labour disputes. He doesn't think the largest layoff of female workers in Canadian history is a labour dispute. That's his problem.

My question to him is: how does it help seniors to have instability like this in the sector? How does it help seniors to have a dispute between two subcontractor friends of the government lead to the layoff of all the care staff? How does it help seniors to have this kind of instability in health care facilities and seniors care across British Columbia?

Hon. K. Falcon: The fact of the matter is I wish there was never instability anywhere in the private or public sector. I think that would be an ideal world, but the reality is that there are occasionally disputes that take place both in the public and the private sector. The issue for me is how the seniors are being looked after, and that's why we had staff going through the facilities — to make sure there was no impact on the seniors.

The member, maybe, is not up to date. I thought I mentioned the fact that apparently the operator has entered into an agreement with the Hospital Employees Union to ensure that they will continue to provide services at those facilities.

The member then goes on to provide Stats Canada figures. What he forgets is that the Stats Canada figures — which, by the way, they've been reporting out since 1984 — exclude the extended care facilities that are attached to the hospitals. That's where the highest level of care is typically required.

What the member may also know is that while his government was in power — the entire decade — the Stats Canada figures said exactly the same thing as they do today.

SUCCESSORSHIP RIGHTS FOR
HEALTH CARE WORKERS

L. Krog: You know, hon. Speaker, people can handle an occasional dispute. Four times in eight years in my community, the seniors at Nanaimo Seniors Village have faced this crisis again and again. I want to say to
[ Page 2655 ]
this minister: he can end this chaos today. He can do the right thing for the workers who work in that facility and care for the most vulnerable amongst us, our seniors. He can bring back successorship rights and do the right thing.

[1410]

Will the minister today commit to this House that he's going to bring back successorship rights and get rid of this crisis once and for all?

Hon. K. Falcon: Once again, it is not a crisis. The fact of the matter is that it's a dispute. I will happily put our labour relations record since 2001 against the NDP's chaotic labour relations record any day of the week. I mean, there comes a point where the rhetoric just becomes ridiculous.

It was chaotic in the 1990s in the labour relations field. Even that government couldn't control the unions that were supposed to be their best friends. They were so busy legislating them back to work and having to deal with all the outbreaks of conflagrations and union strikes left, right and centre.

The fact of the matter is that it is a dispute. It is a dispute that I understand has now been settled two days after it started. These members want to call it a crisis. It is not a crisis. It's a dispute. It has now been settled. I'm pleased to see that, and the members shouldn't panic every time there's a dispute, public or private.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: This is a bit much, coming from the government that was condemned by the Supreme Court of Canada. It's a bit much coming from a government that was condemned by the United Nations. It's a bit much for this minister to tell this House and tell the seniors who live in my community and their families that it isn't a problem.

Four times in eight years the workers have been laid off and have seen their jobs potentially disappear. The seniors they serve, who are often in the end days of their lives, deserve better, and there's a solution. I suggest to this minister — and I ask him today once again: commit to this House to bring back successorship rights. Do the right thing for the seniors in my community, and do the right thing for the workers who support them.

Hon. K. Falcon: The fact of the matter is that it is a dispute. I understand it's a dispute that has now been resolved. A two-day dispute is hardly a crisis. The fact of the matter is…. He talks about Nanaimo Seniors Village, which is in his riding. I acknowledge that.

It was their government that entered into the arrangement in the first place. By the way, this is the same NDP that apparently is horrified at the very prospect of public-private partnerships, but they were the ones that entered into it.

I quoted it to the member — the front page of his local paper, for goodness' sake. It said very clearly that the beds are being constructed under a public-private partnership model as a result of a 1997 policy adopted by the NDP government that demands that such partnerships be explored when planning new facilities.

You know, Mr. Speaker, he was a member of the government that brought it in. Now he's outraged by the fact that there's a dispute. Disputes will happen. Investment is up 40 percent. Over 6,000 new seniors beds across the province — a record that they never came close to matching.

STAFFING AT
LODGE ON 4TH SENIORS FACILITY

D. Routley: This isn't just a back-and-forth between the minister and this side of the House. This is about real people — seniors. This is about the people who built our province. This government took away the successor rights in contracts with health care workers. This government exposed our seniors to that upheaval and instability, and this minister can do nothing but deny.

After years of chaos and instability in Ladysmith, now seniors there face even more unstable futures as the workers at Lodge on 4th have now been handed their layoff notices or notices that their jobs might be contracted out. That's not just a simple dispute. That means they may lose their jobs. Those seniors may lose the people they care for.

[1415]

The minister owes those seniors more respect. The minister owes those seniors a respectful answer, and he owes it to B.C. to deal with this problem and bring back some stability to seniors' lives.

Will he promise them today to intervene in that situation and guarantee that those seniors' lives aren't thrown into chaos in Ladysmith?

Hon. K. Falcon: Let's compare records here. Let's actually go right to the very heart of it, which is not the rhetoric but the actual facts and numbers. How many seniors residences were built by the NDP in a decade in power? It was 1,400. How many were built and totally renovated by the province and this government since 2001? Over 12,000.

Our priority is that we take care of patients and seniors. Their priority is that they take care of public sector unions. That is the difference.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: The difference is that we now have a government that will do anything to evade its responsibility, which plays with numbers that defy the reality in people's lives. Throughout this province, seniors and
[ Page 2656 ]
the people of B.C. are calling out to this government and this minister to hear them. All they get is: "Next window, please. It's the operator's fault. It's someone else's problem. It was worse in the past."

We want to see this minister stand up and take responsibility and improve those people's lives. In fact, the people who are served at Lodge on 4th are about to see those who serve them lose their jobs. Can the minister simply stand up and acknowledge that fact and promise those seniors that he will step in and ensure stability in their lives and bring them from chaos back to some stability, guarantee that those workers will not be displaced and will continue to serve Ladysmith?

Hon. K. Falcon: This is a fascinating back-and-forth, because just a couple of weeks ago I had to sit and listen to 36 hours of how we shouldn't get involved in the paramedic strike — that the end of the world as we know it would happen if we got involved. We couldn't possibly interfere with that. Now in this dispute, government apparently should get involved and interfere. So the NDP, depending on….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: If I'm understanding the logic of the NDP opposition on a public sector labour dispute, it's do not get involved, travesty of democracy, can't possibly touch it. On a private sector dispute, government must get involved and get involved immediately regardless of the fact that it's being resolved by the parties themselves. We apparently need to jump right in and interfere.

It's a remarkable display of NDP thinking — incoherent, hard to understand, doesn't make any sense. I'll tell you what we'll do, Mr. Speaker. We'll stand on our record of over 12,000 new units for seniors, a 40 percent increase in funding since 2001 — a record that puts theirs to shame.

STAFFING AT NORTHCREST CARE CENTRE

G. Gentner: Let's address this Pollyanna view from members opposite, particularly the minister. This decade of deceit….

You know, we can talk about how wonderful things are on this side, but the facts remain the same. We are undergoing the most comprehensive study conducted by the Ombudsperson in the history of this province on the poor, despicable relationships they've had with seniors — how there's no compassion left for the people that built this province. Our Ombudsperson is conducting a thorough investigation because of this disgusting effort by this minister.

[1420]

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, would you choose your words a little more carefully.

G. Gentner: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

G. Gentner: The Minister of Health has now approved Northcrest Care Centre's application to contract up to 33 full-time-equivalents. My question is simply this: why is the government sanctioning layoffs that create turmoil and further instability for patients and the workers who care for them in Delta?

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, as I said in an earlier answer, we have a disagreement with the NDP often. Our view is that the issue that is most important is actually the care of patients or the care of seniors. That should be the guiding principle. Theirs is very straightforward, and they certainly evidenced that during a decade in power. Their primary concern is what is in the interest of public sector unions.

I understand that that is their priority. I get why it's their priority. But the fact of the matter is that our priority is delivering results to the patients and to seniors within the system.

As I indicated, that can be evidenced very clearly by just what's happened in the last eight years — over 12,000 new or totally rehabilitated units for care for seniors right across the province of British Columbia. In the entire decade that the NDP had to actually demonstrate their commitment to seniors care, they managed to build a grand total of 1,400. So you can understand why I'm not going to take lectures from the NDP on how to deliver first-class seniors care in the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Gentner: You know, we've seen the example from the minister opposite. We saw what he did to his own constituents, pushing them out of Zion almost a year ago today — dis-relocated, shut them down and moved them.

Here we are again. I want to ask the question again, because it was not properly answered. The government continues to push contracting, like in the case of Northcrest Care Centre in Delta. Can the minister explain why this government is endorsing more instability for frail seniors? Please answer the question.
[ Page 2657 ]

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, in the NDP world nothing should ever change — doesn't matter what's happening in the system, doesn't matter what the pressures are.

The fact of the matter is, as you well know, we are increasing the Health budget by almost 20 percent over the next three years. We also know that even with a 20 percent budget increase, there are still pressures in the system. Naturally, the system will always look to ways that they can deliver those services cost-effectively to the benefit of their patients.

I don't have the specifics of what he's talking about, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a contracting-out exercise taking place to look for opportunities to save dollars and put that directly into patient care. That's what they'd be doing.

REGULATION OF DODA

H. Bains: Last week during a raid a Surrey RCMP drug section seized hundreds of pounds of poppy pods and finished product, along with crushing and grinding equipment. They describe this facility as a very busy commercial enterprise.

This product, called doda, is openly sold in corner stores in many parts of the Lower Mainland, but this product is regulated under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. My question to the Solicitor General is this: why is this product allowed to be sold openly in stores where even a minor can walk in and buy it, no questions asked?

Hon. K. Heed: We've seen the devastation that these illegal drugs cause on societies. This particular drug, known commonly as doda, is actually under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which is a federal statute. It's up to the federal government to regulate that particular statute.

[1425]

We work within that particular statute, as law enforcement agencies throughout British Columbia, but it's a federal law, and doda is governed by that federal law.

IMPACT OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX
ON TOURISM INDUSTRY

S. Herbert: The Council of Tourism Associations has said that the HST will cost up to 10,000 jobs in the tourism sector, and tourism operators large and small have been unanimous in their opposition to the HST imposition on their sector.

Ecotours-B.C.'s Peggy Zorn had this to say about the HST. She wrote: "Tourism visits will not increase with this tax. In fact, they will decrease as tourists from beyond our borders boycott British Columbia based on the additional tax expense on an already expensive destination."

My question is to the Minister of Tourism. Before the election the B.C. Liberals said no to the HST. Right after the election they slammed B.C. with it. Will the minister do the right thing and support the tourism industry's opposition to the HST?

Hon. C. Hansen: As we have heard from all of the leading economists across Canada, the move to the HST is the single biggest thing that we can do in British Columbia to stimulate the economy and create jobs.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just sit down for a second.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: We know that when the economy is doing well, the tourism sector does well. This initiative will help to actually stimulate the economy and make sure that there are more jobs created in British Columbia in every single corner of the province, including in that member's community.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: I've had the pleasure of meeting with representatives of the tourism association over the last number of months — the various tourism associations. One of the things that they indicated to me early on, from one of the organizations, was that they felt that it was important, as we come out of this economic recession and take our place as one of the leading economies in North America, that we put additional dollars into tourism marketing. That's exactly why, in the September budget update, we announced an additional $39 million for tourism marketing.

[End of question period.]

C. James: I rise to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

C. James: I present a petition signed by 918 British Columbians who oppose the HST.
[ Page 2658 ]

Tabling Documents

Hon. B. Stewart: I have the honour to present the 2007-2008 report on multiculturalism and the 2008-2009 report on multiculturalism.

S. Simpson: I rise to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

S. Simpson: I present a petition signed by hundreds of constituents of Vancouver-Hastings calling on the government to stop the HST.

N. Macdonald: I have two petitions. First, I would like to present a petition on behalf of constituents concerned about expulsions from the Whitetale Estates near Radium. They're calling for strengthening of the tenancy act to provide protections for people being displaced from mobile home parks. It's signed by 220 people.

Can I do a second?

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

N. Macdonald: The second is from 120 individuals in the Revelstoke area. They're petitioning this House, asking legislators to address the critical condition of the Ambulance Service and to work towards recruitment and retention of skilled paramedics who provide the community with vital emergency services.

L. Krog: I seek leave to table a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

L. Krog: I table a petition in support of the ambulance paramedics, signed by the people of central Vancouver Island.

N. Simons: I have a petition signed by approximately 800 people opposing the government's HST.

[1430]

R. Chouhan: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

R. Chouhan: I have a petition signed by more than 600 people asking the government to address the issues of poor wages and working conditions of paramedics.

R. Fleming: May I present a petition from residents of Victoria and Saanich — a petition to address the critical condition of the Ambulance Service, to improve service levels in our communities, and to ensure recruitment and retention of skilled paramedics, who provide us with these vital emergency and health care services.

Hon. M. de Jong: Might I have leave to make a quick introduction?

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. de Jong: In the gallery — and I'll meet with her soon enough — is a gifted local artist, Cathy Thompson, and her son David Thompson. I hope the House will make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call, in Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of the members, the estimates of the Ministry of Finance; and in this chamber, Committee of Supply, estimates of the Ministry of Health.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH SERVICES

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:33 p.m.

Introductions by Members

R. Fleming: Chair, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

R. Fleming: It's my pleasure to announce somebody who is watching Hansard today, who is retiring. That is David Turner, who is a decades-long professor at the school of social work. He is having a sizeable retirement party. I see some people who will be attending tonight at the University of Victoria to ensure that it is true and many to wish him well.

David has had an outstanding career at the University of Victoria. Of course, he was there back in the days when there were still Quonset huts and unexploded munitions at the campus. He's seen it grow from a few thousand students to over 25,000 students today.

He's had a distinguished career not only in the school of social work, but of course, he served as Victoria's mayor from 1990 to '93. The downtown of Victoria is a
[ Page 2659 ]
better place for it. Many of the heritage improvements we owe to David's touch — and many of the improvements to our public transit system. Would the House wish David Turner well in his retirement.

[1435]

Debate Continued

On Vote 34: ministry operations, $14,008,318,000 (continued).

A. Dix: On Thursday, when we previously debated these estimates, we were discussing the cuts and reductions to elective surgery in the Fraser Health Authority. To remind the minister and just to quote again from Mr. Barefoot's message to him: "In 2009 Fraser Health had budgeted for total revenues of $2.47 billion, representing an increase of 2.9 percent over the revenues for 2008-2009."

The minister will recall that I asked him questions about what the impact of those cuts would be at hospitals in the Fraser Health Authority. He said he'd endeavour to bring that information back to me, and I'm wondering if he has been able to find that information.

[1440]

Hon. K. Falcon: Staff is arranging to have that collated and brought in.

A. Dix: My appreciation to staff as well. Would the minister be able to share that information with me? Is that the intent, so we don't have to go through hospital by hospital? That's wonderful news, I think, not just for us — for the small but hardy viewing audience at home.

I just want to move on to a question about Vancouver Coastal Health, because we focused attention, and we have a short period of time here in this session…. First of all, it's my understanding that in the last few weeks, Vancouver Coastal Health served layoff notices to technologists that perform MRIs for patients in Vancouver Coastal Health.

Can the minister tell me how many people were laid off? If we look at the MRI numbers for the rest of the year, what impact will that have on the number of MRIs performed in Vancouver Coastal Health?

[1445]

Hon. K. Falcon: I apologize for that delay, Member. In a $2½ billion Vancouver Coastal budget, we're digging around trying to find the four technologists that the member is referring to.

These four technologists were employed in a pilot project that was being governed under the Lower Mainland Innovation and Integration Fund, which was a pay-for-performance model. We're testing out how, by doing activity-based funding, we can see whether we're generating additional procedures and new innovations. The pilot project itself has wrapped up, but we will continue to analyze the success of that project as part of a larger review we're doing for pay for performance.

What I can tell the member is that thus far Vancouver Coastal has provided more than 10,000 additional MRI procedures since late 2008, which is certainly dramatic. It's important to recognize that eliminating these positions, I am advised by Vancouver Coastal, will not impact access to MRIs at Vancouver Coastal. They remain absolutely on track to complete their 18,000 budgeted procedures this year, which is over and above the 2,500 additional procedures they've provided.

A. Dix: So the budgeted amount for MRIs in Vancouver Coastal Health is 18,000 this year. What was the budgeted amount last year? I don't think the minister meant to say that the laying off of MRI techs and the reduction of capacity wouldn't have an impact. Obviously, it would have an impact. But if 18,000 is the budgeted number this year, then what was the budgeted number last year?

[1450]

Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate the member's patience as we gather the information.

Again, the four technologists the member refers to were part of a pilot project that was being run to demonstrate whether, through a pay-for-performance initiative, we could increase the number of MRIs in a meaningful way. What I can tell the member is that in '07-08, the base budget for MRI procedures was also for 18,000 procedures. As a result of the pay-for-performance initiative, they undertook an additional 7,500 MRIs conducted in '08-09.

This year they have also budgeted for 18,000 MRIs, but my understanding is that they will be doing an additional 2,500 procedures with the same budget as a result of some of the lessons they've learned as a result of the pay-for-performance pilot project, which will now be reviewed to determine whether some form of that will continue into the future.

A. Dix: I'll be delighted to hear the news of the study where you hire more technologists who spend more hours doing MRIs and you discover that you get more MRIs done. I'll be looking forward to the results of that study. It'll be fantastic.

I assume that some other things came out of that as well, but presumably the 2,500 figure this year means that those extra technologists were annualized and that they're now not annualized. Is that the difference?

Presumably, the extra 2,500 would include the work done by those technologists who were working from April 1 to at least, I believe, on or around November 1. Their work would be included in those totals, and they've now been laid off. There would actually be the
[ Page 2660 ]
equivalent in the next few months of the 18,000 over the final months of the fiscal year. Am I understanding that correctly?

[1455]

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, the four technologists that were hired for the pilot project, I understand, were essentially re-engineering how they deliver MRIs to try and determine whether there was a way, with appropriate financial incentives, to deliver more MRIs in a manner that would provide ongoing improvements after the pilot project came to an end.

The member is right that while they were there, obviously the four technologists were able to help provide a portion of the 2,500 additional procedures, but their positions run out. If memory serves me correct, I think it's at the end of December, and they will continue to provide MRIs through to the end of their fiscal year, the end of March, which will allow them to do 2,500 more MRIs than was budgeted — the 18,000 that were budgeted for. I think that's exactly the kind of thing we're looking for as we examine the different pay-for-performance projects.

A. Dix: Just to clarify with the minister. We did 25,500 in '08-09, and we're doing 20,500 in '09-10. Is that an accurate way to distil what he just said?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, that would be basically right.

A. Dix: I won't even get into a debate with the minister about whether that's a cut or not. We'll just move past that one and on to another question.

The next question I have for him is about acute psychiatry beds and what's going on now. It's obviously for us, especially those of us who represent constituencies in Vancouver Coastal Health, but I think everyone on the Lower Mainland, a really key question.

I want to ask the minister to explain what's going on now. I have in front of me…. It's not a secret memorandum or anything. It's a document that was sent out by Lorna Howes and by the medical director of Vancouver Coastal Health, Soma Ganesan. The memorandum says that the government is transferring 20 beds from UBC to Vancouver General Hospital, and those beds include complex disorders intervention unit beds — 15 of those and five early psychosis intervention beds — and that the government then is planning to effectively reduce 20 what are called general psych beds by consolidating E-1 and W-1 at Vancouver General Hospital health centre.

I want to ask the minister because, on the face of it — and I think that's what the memorandum says, at least in the short run…. I think this is probably linked to the new tertiary model in the area, but in the short run there'll be 20 fewer beds. Is that an accurate reflection of what's going on in Vancouver Coastal Health?

[1500]

Hon. K. Falcon: Vancouver Coastal has been engaged in a yearlong, evidence-based process to review its psychiatric programs and bed capacity to ensure it is best meeting the needs of their patients.

Vancouver Coastal Health Authority is planning to combine two of their early psychosis intervention programs, now located at the UBC Hospital and on Commercial Drive, into one site on East Hastings in order to create a more robust early psychosis intervention program. That then allows them to take the beds vacated at UBC, for example — I believe there are 18 beds vacated at UBC — and renovate those for the new patients that will be coming from Riverview Hospital as a result of the completion of the Riverview devolution.

[1505]

A. Dix: But the question was…. Vancouver Coastal Health is reducing by 20 right now — well, it says November 2009, and we're in November 29, so it's conceivably not right now; it may be in the coming weeks — the number of acute care, what are called general psych beds, by 20 at Vancouver General Hospital.

I guess the question is: are those beds presently used to capacity? That's what they're doing. They say so. My question wasn't about the early psychosis intervention program, although I'll be getting there. My question was about those 20 beds. Were they being used now? Is this a reduction, at least in the short term, in capacity? What impact will that have on patients?

Hon. K. Falcon: I just want to make sure I correct the member so that the member doesn't construe a change being a reduction. What is happening is there are a total of 117 acute psychiatry beds located at both VGH and UBC Hospital, which provide a mix of tertiary, secondary and emergency care. There is, as I say, a plan to combine two of the intervention programs at two different locations into one at a site on East Hastings.

The reason we are moving those clients out of those 18 beds is to allow a renovation to take place for those beds to ensure that they are capable of then taking the new patients who will be coming from Riverview as part of the Riverview devolution plan and to make sure those beds are there and capable of handling those folks who will be coming from Riverview.

It is a change. I acknowledge that. But it is a change which is part of a year-long effort as they've been looking at how they are going to manage, on an evidence-based process, their psychiatric programs and bed capacity.

A. Dix: I'll just read it because I feel the minister and I are getting stuck, and I don't mean us to be. I'm just reading from his document or the Vancouver Coastal Health document.

I'm reading from this. This is from Lorna Howes, and it said:
[ Page 2661 ]

"Beginning in November we'll begin to make these changes: transfer 15 complex disorder intervention unit beds from UBC Hospital to VGH; transfer five early psychosis intervention beds from UBC Hospital to VGH; add two beds to brief intervention unit at VGH; and then consolidate E-1 and W-1 at VGH health centre and reduce 20 general psych beds to facilitate the transfer of beds from UBC."

So the 20 beds go from UBC to VGH. VGH stays the same. It accommodates the 20 beds, and it reduces 20 of its own beds. So it's a minus 20 or, if you count the added two beds, a minus 18. I just want to understand if that's correct in the short run. I'm not trying to trick the minister here. This is just what it says. I'm trying to understand what it says. So it's a minus 18 in the short run.

What I'd like to know is whether those 20 general psych beds are, as was suggested in the case of Abbotsford, underutilized and whether they're in fact fully utilized now.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is right. It is a net reduction of 18 that are being renovated in anticipation of the new clients moving in as part of the Riverview devolution. Also in the plans as part of the Riverview devolution, of course, will be the addition of even more beds, again as part of the Riverview devolution project.

A. Dix: It's a net reduction of 18 for how long? The minister talks about the beds in the future, but for the moment we're talking about a net reduction of 18 beds at a time when there's real pressure on those beds.

I understand that changes have to be made all the time. But I guess the question is: how long will that net reduction of 18 beds be in place?

[1510]

Hon. K. Falcon: In discussing with my staff and getting my head around a series of changes that are taking place here, essentially what is happening is consistent with what the member and I have been discussing.

[1515]

They are doing a program to review their psychiatric program and bed capacity to not only meet the emerging evidence-based process that follows a yearlong review they were doing on delivery of psychiatric programs and services, but at the same time, they were doing it to meet the direction that we're moving in terms of the Riverview devolution.

The member will note that part of that involves a consolidation of bed services to the site on East Hastings. That 18 net reduction in beds — those beds will then be renovated in preparation for the new clients that will arrive from the devolution of Riverview.

In addition to that — and I'm just attempting to get the number for the member — there will be new additional beds added as part of the Riverview devolution program. I'm just endeavouring to get at least a good estimate of that number for the member.

A. Dix: Maybe since the minister is getting that, I'll move on to the next question, and then we'll come back to it. I guess the number I want to know is…. What I'm interested in is: minus 18 for how long? That's the question I want to know.

Then I can ask the minister a question about other aspects of the early psychosis intervention program. In that case, he was talking about beds coming forward. I wanted to ask him, because I think the minister may have met — he's certainly heard from — parents and families involved in the program at UBC. I'm referring, in this case, not to the in-patient beds but to the day program.

What they say is — and I think this is true — that this is a levelling of service that we've seen in other places and that the day program is going to see reduced service. Instead of five days a week, it will be one morning a week. Obviously, that's a different program, and it's a cut related to budgetary concerns.

I think the argument Vancouver Coastal Health has made is that if you reduce the services each person receives, you can provide it to more people. But the truth of the matter is that this program, the day program I'm referring to now, is an incredibly successful program.

I have two questions for the minister, I guess. One is: will the minister be prepared to meet with the parents and families of people involved in this program? I've met with them, and they make a really compelling case around the program — around its value, around the money it saves in the long run, around what's happened. And then explain, I guess, here in the House, if you agree to meet with them…. That would be an important thing to do.

I'm referring here to the day program, not to the acute program. Would he agree to meet with those parents? I think when he does and when he hears from them, he'll understand that while you can make an argument — as has been made, for example, by the Minister of Children and Families on EIBI — that the reduction allows a spreading out of the benefit, the truth is that for the people involved, it appears to have a dramatically negative effect on them. The care and help they're getting has actually been — if you look at the results of that, the evidence-based results of that — very successful.

I wanted to ask the minister: (1) would he meet with the parents and the families and the people in the day program, the early psychosis intervention program which is being moved from UBC? And (2) will he tell the House — the question of the move is one thing — why he thinks the reduction in the breadth of this program is a good idea?

Hon. K. Falcon: If the member could help me. In the universe of health authorities there are literally hundreds and hundreds of different programs. This sounds suspiciously like a program that was a contracted program,
[ Page 2662 ]
but I'd need a little more detail from the member to make sure we're talking about the same program. If the member could do that for me, I'd appreciate it — particularly a name of the contractor or the program or something that could give us some help in identifying what it is.

[1520]

In terms of the beds that we were talking about, the in-patient psychiatric beds. The member will be pleased to know, I'm sure, that as part of the Riverview devolution I talked about, not only will those 18 beds that are being renovated be utilized by folks from Riverview, we will also next year be adding an additional 22 beds on top of that, for a grand total of 40 beds being added next year.

I'll wait for the information, the clarity, on the other contracted organization to provide an answer there.

A. Dix: Next year. Presumably we mean next fiscal year, so between April 2010 and March 2011. I just want the minister to be more precise. I'm just genuinely curious as to how long this current net reduction of 18 beds will last. As the minister will know, sometimes projects take longer than the government says they will, so I'd be curious about that.

The program I'm referring to is the UBC out-patient EPI program. That's the program I'm referring to. The minister will have received, I think, quite a bit of correspondence around the question.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'll just give a quick answer on the first point while I gather information on the organization the member mentioned.

The member is right. Those additional 22 beds would be added in fiscal '10-11. I can tell you the schedule in terms of the 18 beds that are being pulled out to do renovations on. That's essentially the construction schedule, but I can tell you that Vancouver Coastal is very anxious to get the construction work completed and the moment it is completed to then have those beds filled and the additional 22 beds added beginning on April 1 of the new fiscal year.

None of my staff are familiar with the program. It doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or that it's not important, just that they don't have that information. They will try and get that, and we can answer that as soon as we get it.

A. Dix: This one, I think, the minister will be delighted to answer because I think they have all the information here. Vancouver Coastal Health has got a lift of 2.4 percent this year. If you take it on last year's actual — because, as I understand it, the health authority ran a deficit last year, as they had for the previous two years — that would mean a somewhat smaller increase, even, based on last year's actual expenditures.

I just want to ask the minister, first of all, what the accumulated deficit is over the last three years. What happens to that accumulated deficit? Are there any plans for the government to actually reimburse the health authority or deal with that deficit, because really, it's the deficit of the province?

My assumption is that at the beginning of each fiscal year the health authority deals with that as a matter of cash flow, but I presume that at a certain point, once the deficit becomes big enough, that will become impossible.

I wanted to ask the minister specifically how big the accumulated deficit is. Is it his expectation that there will not be a deficit this year? I think these are important questions, of course, for the health authority because, as the minister will recall, in January 2007 the chair of the health authority was fired for not being able to deliver a balanced budget. Then in the subsequent three years the government hasn't been able to deliver a balanced budget in the health authority.

I want to understand what the government has learned from those deficit budgets and whether the minister is prepared to give us the assurance that there won't be a deficit budget in Vancouver Coastal Health this year.

[1525]

Hon. K. Falcon: In the case of Vancouver Coastal, I understand they ran a deficit in '07-08 of just over $35½ million. In '08-09 they ran a deficit of $20.187 million. This year I am pleased to report that they are on track to balance their budget. Of course, the member would know they are seeing an increase in their budget for fiscal '09-10 of 4.3 percent.

I will also say that they have, I think quite dramatically, improved their cash management at Vancouver Coastal, and the leadership of the chair and the board is worth noting. The chair, David Thompson, and the board, I think, have done an exceptional job working with Vancouver Coastal and Providence Health Care in ensuring they stay within the budget increases that have been budgeted.

A. Dix: With respect to that money, though, there isn't anything contemplated. Is it the government's position that eventually Vancouver Coastal will run some year a $70 million surplus and then be dealing with that money? Is that his position? Or is it that at some point, given that all these budgets were approved — and I think it's pretty clear that Vancouver Coastal has gone through some difficult periods — the government will come to its aid? Is it their position that they're just going to leave that money out there as a debt?

[1530]

Hon. K. Falcon: It's an expectation of this government and this minister that they will balance their budget on a year-to-year basis. We fully expect and indeed anticipate that they will do exactly that.
[ Page 2663 ]

A. Dix: It's been three years in a row since that happened. I know there was a previous minister there, so there may be change. Who knows?

My question was very precise. What happens to that accumulated deficit? Part of it is Vancouver Coastal, and part of it is Providence. What happens to that accumulated deficit? How is that dealt with by the government? That's my very straightforward question to you.

Hon. K. Falcon: Those deficits would be consolidated as part of the consolidation of government's books at the end of that fiscal year. The surplus would have reflected…. They would net it out, obviously. There would be whatever the surplus was that year. I forget. It was a record surplus, if my memory serves me correctly. They would net out that deficit from the health authority in terms of the consolidated books.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

As I say, on a go-forward basis, this year, as I mentioned, Vancouver Coastal is very much on track to balance its budget. I am just very pleased with the fact that they've done some very good work to ensure they do exactly that.

A. Dix: As the minister will know…. Given the 2.4 percent lift they're getting this year, that's all very interesting. That information, of course, comes from the chair of the board, so it couldn't possibly be wrong.

My next question to the minister is about contracted agencies, particularly those providing addiction services. As the minister will know, a somewhat different approach was taken within the Vancouver Coastal Health region, as between North Vancouver and Richmond on the one hand and what's called, I think, Vancouver coastal or the city of Vancouver–based services.

Can the minister explain why — I think he knows and I think people in Richmond know that the Richmond Addiction Services Society has done outstanding work over the years — this contract was completely gutted?

In addition, why has the Canadian Mental Health Association in Richmond seen a funding reduction in 2010-11 of $53,000? That's annualized on $20,000 this year, in this estimates period. Why has the Kinsmen adult day program received a cut? Why has virtually every contractor in Richmond and on the North Shore received significant cuts?

I guess I'm asking the minister, just in terms of detail, if he can lay out for us the contractors — in particular, the list of contractors in Vancouver, on the North Shore and in Richmond — and if he can provide to this House a summary of all the contract reductions. Some of the contract reductions have to do with a standard that was set by the health authority with respect to what is called administration — of course, ignoring that some of that administration cost is fundraising cost.

That's one set, and then other agencies, such as West Coast Alternatives and RASS and others, got fully cut.

Can the minister just commit — because we don't want to have to go through all of them — to letting us know what all the cuts are, in one place? Could he commit to do that so that we can see them together and people on the North Shore, people in Richmond and people in the city of Vancouver and up the coast can understand what the funding was last year, what the cuts are this year and what the total savings are?

Hon. K. Falcon: We're apparently going to have this discussion again, because the member refers to changes as cuts, when they're not. They are changes to how we are delivering mental health and addiction in the province of British Columbia, particularly in the Lower Mainland.

[1535]

It might help for the member to know that since Vancouver Coastal was formed in 2002, spending on mental health and addictions has actually increased by 63 percent. That is an increase in mental health and addictions spending alone of 63 percent, and spending is increasing again this year to record levels.

Now, within the context of that record level of increase in mental health and addictions spending, Vancouver Coastal is also making sure that as research emerges demonstrating that…. Increasingly, we see the kind of clients that present with mental health challenges or with addiction challenges are often one and the same. It is what we call concurrent disorders.

No one is saying that Richmond Addiction Services wasn't providing important addictions services, but they were not providing concurrent-disorder services. What Vancouver Coastal has done is…. They will be delivering those services through Vancouver Coastal directly, and they will be providing the concurrent-disorder services that they believe, and clinical best practices and evidence demonstrate, is the best way to go forward.

The clinical staff from Richmond Addiction Services, my understanding is, have been offered positions, as they transition to Vancouver Coastal Health, delivering those programs.

But you know, Member, it is totally wrong for you to call that a cut. I get that for the Richmond Addiction Services agency, which has provided these services for many, many years, it certainly is to them. I acknowledge that.

As I say, what they will be doing is delivering those services in the manner that best practices suggest they should be delivered — in other words, concurrent disorders, recognizing that those are the kinds of individuals that are increasingly presenting with addiction problems. Once they strip away the addiction challenges, they find that there are often significant mental health issues underlying that. That is indeed a change.

Naturally, Vancouver Coastal is doing this uniformly across its service delivery area, and there are other
[ Page 2664 ]
similar agencies. They are ensuring that Vancouver Coastal is moving forward with new programs that reflect the concurrent-disorder model that suggests that that is the best way to treat these individuals — in other words, individuals that are suffering from both addiction and mental health issues.

Similarly, with West Coast Alternatives, the contract is being repatriated to Vancouver Coastal. Vancouver Coastal will be delivering under a new program that reflects the best evidence and the concurrent-disorder nature of the delivery of the service so that the clients will be better served, based on the additional evidence.

In the case of West Coast Alternatives, as I said to the member — I think this may have come up in the House during question period at one point — clients who are currently receiving one-on-one counselling through West Coast Alternatives will continue to receive one-on-one counselling through Vancouver Coastal.

I think it's important to recognize that while that is a change, it certainly is a change that is governed and predicated upon some of the things that we are learning. It is certainly not a cut when you are increasing the budget for mental health and addictions in Vancouver Coastal, as I say, by 63 percent.

Having said that, one of the things we have to do in Health is that when new evidence starts to emerge that suggests there's a different way we can treat some of these folks that are dealing with substance abuse or mental health issues, we ought not be afraid to pursue that. We can't just keep doing things…. I know that some of the opposition members have suggested we just keep doing things the way we've always done them, but that actually, certainly, isn't consistent with what the best practices would suggest.

Within that 63 percent budget increase for mental health and addictions, are they making changes? They are. Are those changes difficult for the contracted service providers that used to provide a portion of the services? Yes, they are.

I know that the staff at Vancouver Coastal is working with the contract service providers to try and ensure that the transition will be as smooth as possible.

A. Dix: The minister will know that what they said on Vancouver Island was that you had to be sicker to get care. Presumably, that's what's being said here — that the focus on concurrent disorders means that inevitably….

[1540]

There are arguments around these questions. They're not simple arguments, and the minister simplifies them to the point of it being ludicrous.

Let me just say it very simply to him: can he provide us with a list of all the contracted mental health and addiction agencies, so that we don't have to go through the details and everything else, for Richmond, for Vancouver and then for the North Shore now — the list of the contract they got last year and the list of the cut in those contracts?

I know the minister doesn't like the word "cut," but when you get less one year than the previous year, that's generally viewed as a cut, in English. If he wants to suggest another word…. "Negative change?" I'm willing to go with "negative change" as well.

Can the minister simply commit to laying out for us all of the contracted services? And if he can provide that document, which I'm sure the health authority has already prepared in any event, if you just provide that thing, then we can move on to the next topic.

Hon. K. Falcon: Just to discuss further, there are, I'm informed, 350 contracts currently held throughout the Vancouver Coastal Region. Approximately 240 of those contracts are under review and are engaged in mental health and addiction contracts, I believe. I hope I'm reading that correctly.

What they are requiring under the contract review is ensuring that there be a 10 percent limit on administrative overhead. That is consistent with what the health authority itself is doing. They are ensuring that they reduce their administrative and overhead support to no more than 10 percent of the total budget. They're requiring the same thing from the contract service providers.

They are taking a close look at discretionary spending, particularly around travel and consulting contracts. Vancouver Coastal is also looking to eliminate duplication and try and determine whether there can be increased productivity and efficiency in the delivery of those services by cooperating more with Fraser Health Authority and Providence Health Care.

One of the things that I do think we have to acknowledge, Member, particularly when there are over 300 contract service providers providing a whole ream of services, many that have been going on for many years, is that, as I mentioned in my earlier answer, as more information comes to the fore in terms of how best to treat and look after patients that present with addictions and mental health challenges, we do want to make sure we follow best evidence.

I remember in a previous time here the critic had asked what evidence that's predicated upon. I do think that…. There are a number of reviews that I could certainly read into the record, but certainly the 2004 article published in the Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal. It stated that: "The cumulative evidence from experimental and quasi-experimental research supports integrating outpatient mental health and substance abuse treatments into a single cohesive package."

The 2008 article published in the Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research again showed both concurrent disorders treatment — and that includes the use of assertive community teams; as you know, something that we've been doing and expanding
[ Page 2665 ]
in the province — and integrated assertive community produced better consumer satisfaction and stable housing outcomes than do the standard care models.

[1545]

It goes on and on — in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, the Community Mental Health Journal, the Psychiatric Services journal, the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. And on and on it goes. But essentially, the common emerging consensus is that that is the appropriate approach.

As Vancouver Coastal looks at how they're delivering those services, it is certainly incumbent upon them in some cases — and as the member pointed out clearly, with Richmond Addiction and West Coast Alternatives, that means a change. It's not a question of being cute about whether it's a negative reduction or whatever it is.

They're cancelling their contracts, so that has an impact on those agency service providers. I understand that, but they're not cancelling the service. The service is continuing to be delivered through Vancouver Coastal, and it will be delivered incorporating what the latest best practices and evidence tell us should be included when treating these individuals that present with concurrent disorders around mental health and addictions.

I think, though, that it is difficult to make that change, particularly for the contract service providers. I understand how passionately they feel their current addiction services provide important services, and they do. They just don't provide the concurrent service that is governed by the studies that demonstrate that that is the best model for treating those that suffer from both mental health and addictions issues.

A. Dix: Well, I defy the minister to find a study that says that you cut one group of people and add the money to another group of people. Anyway, it's just what it is.

But the question really was: will he provide us with the list of the contract agencies, a spreadsheet that I'm sure Vancouver Coastal has, that shows the reductions by agency so that we can see that and so that this House, which votes the money used for that, can see that? That's the simple question I asked, which he just answered, apparently.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'd be happy to get the member a list of all the contract service providers.

Again, I should let the record note that the requirement that they are asking of all of the service providers — to limit their administrative costs within the same framework and discipline they put themselves under — is something that I very much support. I expect — quite rightly, I think — Vancouver Coastal to apply the same standard to their contract service providers that they are applying to themselves.

I will get that member a complete list of the contract service providers.

A. Dix: And the reductions in their contracts.

I'd just point out to the minister that it's not comparable. I mean, having run a non-profit, he knows — he has worked with non-profits in the past — that some of what's called administration is fundraising. The reason that some of these agencies are extraordinarily successful is that they do a lot of things that are broadly called administration but that expand their capacity to do more than what they are funded to do.

With that, with the minister's agreement to provide the list of those cuts, I just have one question from my colleague for Vancouver–West End.

S. Herbert: Just a quick question for the minister. I'm wondering if he can tell me what budget amount is currently being spent to keep the lands down by Station Street. The Esperanza Society, I believe, holds them, and I've heard that the government is paying the taxes for those lands.

If you could give me that figure, and also if you could give me an update about where we are in the process to revitalize St. Paul's Hospital on site in the West End, as I've been calling for, for some time.

Hon. K. Falcon: The property taxes that are being covered for the lands that are owned by the Esperanza Society are in the amount of approximately $800,000 annually.

S. Herbert: Just the second part of my question for the minister: where are we in the process to revitalize St. Paul's Hospital on site, and can I get some assurance that it will happen in the West End?

[1550]

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised by staff that it's still very early days in terms of contemplating the role that St. Paul's will play within the larger context of the entire Vancouver Coastal Health region.

This is something that certainly is near and dear to my heart, as my mother worked at St. Paul's for some 25 years as a nurse. But again, I'm advised by staff that this is still very, very early on. We continue to have discussions with the health authority and with Providence Health Care as we look to the future and determine what is the best way to deliver top-quality health services for the Vancouver area.

A. Dix: I'm not sure how early on it is in the process which started in 2002, but you know, we'll take that to mean that it's going to be a long process.

Just a couple of questions to the minister about the situation in the Interior Health Authority, which will allow for a shuffling of binders, I think. I guess the first question I had to the minister is…. I'll start simple for the minister. The Vernon surgical review has been ongoing
[ Page 2666 ]
for some time. Can the minister tell us what the results are of that review? Has the government concluded that it was right or that the Vernon surgeons were right?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm glad the member mentioned Interior Health. I can tell you that today, for the benefit of members in the House, there are about $433 million worth of construction projects underway for Kelowna General and Vernon Jubilee Hospital. This is, indeed, a very exciting time. The seven-storey Vernon Jubilee tower is going to dramatically improve the manner and method in which care is being delivered in the Interior.

In fact, ironically, on Friday of last week I had the incredible, really emotional and moving opportunity to be at the Kelowna General Hospital, where the first patient that underwent an angioplasty…. The first cardiac surgical procedure that has taken place at Kelowna General as a result of the $27 million in funding that we provided to get the new cardiac surgical unit up and running…. It will form the basis for a new ongoing surgical suite and services that will be provided for the entire Interior and, indeed, perhaps even northern parts of the province in terms of top-notch cardiac care in the province of British Columbia.

The first patient, Ron Kaerne, was really quite something. Here was a young man of age 51 who was born in Kelowna General Hospital, had a heart attack — you can imagine how terrifying that would be — and was able to go and be the first patient to receive an angioplasty. He was awake the entire time the service was being delivered, and it was successfully delivered for the benefit of Mr. Kaerne.

I can tell all members of this House just what a moving experience it was to be there with the surgeons, with the nurses, with all of the care aides and the staff and the family that were just so excited about these new services taking place at Kelowna General. I did want to mention that, because I do think it is a testament to the great work that is taking place at Interior Health.

Now, with respect to the issue that the member mentions in Vernon…. Actually, in the summer I met with a number of the surgeons at Vernon Jubilee with respect to issues and recommendations and suggestions they had in terms of how some of the surgical challenges that they face could be dealt with as a result of that.

The staff went away and were preparing a report. I'm not at all certain that the report has been completed. If it has, I haven't had the opportunity to see it yet, but essentially, coming out of that meeting with the surgeons, I committed to make sure that the report is undertaken with their input and that that report would hopefully make some recommendations that could help deal with some of the issues that were raised by the very, very good surgeons that I met with while in Vernon.

A. Dix: Just for people watching at home, the answer to that question was: "I don't know." To follow up on that, will the minister let us know when we can expect results of the review that was requested?

[1555]

A question on the Interior Health Authority. Can the minister tell us, to begin with, whether it's his expectation now that the Interior Health Authority will balance its budget? As you'll recall, when we raised these issues in March, the previous Minister of Health and the head of the Interior Health Authority said that there wouldn't be cuts in patient services and that there wouldn't be any prospect of a deficit. As we had predicted, both those proved to be untrue.

Of course, there have been very significant cuts to patient services that we've seen across Interior Health, including at the very hospital the minister was just referring to — the continued year-long problem of code purples at Vernon Jubilee Hospital. In any event, can the minister tell us whether it is his view that the budget will now be balanced in Interior Health in this 2009-2010 fiscal year?

Hon. K. Falcon: I do appreciate the member recognizing that my last answer was lengthy. In addition to answering his question, I did talk about some of these other things, because I do think it is important to recognize what is going well within our system. We have an outstanding health care system in British Columbia, quite aside from the fact that sometimes members of the opposition and some in the public sector union feel or try to suggest that we have a terrible system.

We have an exceptional system, and that was reinforced to me at Interior Health when I had the opportunity at Kelowna General to visit and be part of the new surgical unit and talk to the surgeons there, Dr. Richard Townley and Dr. Dick Hooper — two eminent British Columbians who just do outstanding work and are so genuinely excited and thrilled about the new services that are offered.

In fact, subsequent to that visit — it might just be interesting, because it puts it all in perspective to know that — we received a follow-up note from Dr. Dick Hooper, who advised that a client in Interior Health who presented with a serious heart attack which, in most cases, this individual would not have survived…. Given the time frame as a result of having the cardiac response now available as quickly as it is available, this individual today is alive and well as a result of those services. I think that that really puts a very human dimension on some of the improvements that are being made.

Directly to the member's question now, with respect to specifically Interior Health, under the very capable leadership, I must say, of Murray Ramsden, the outgoing CEO — and I'm very sorry to see Murray go, because I think he's probably one of the best individuals that I've had the pleasure of working with, even in my brief time as Minister of Health — they are also on track to balance
[ Page 2667 ]
their budget. I think that is very much a testament to the leadership of Murray, his executive team and all of the staff, indeed — front-line and otherwise staff at Interior Health. They are on target to balance their budget.

K. Conroy: Heading over into the Kootenays part of the Interior Health Authority, there were a number of cuts of nurses announced just in the last few weeks, who are going to be losing their jobs or being displaced.

The rationale was utilized that they're reconfiguring the hospital to accommodate seniors in the acute care facility in Trail at the Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital. We're looking at, at least, six registered nurses being laid off. We know that there's a shortage of nurses right now in this province, and it's a real concern in our area.

We also know that seniors are being housed in the psychiatric ward at the regional hospital. They're being housed on the acute care floor in Trail at the regional hospital. Nurses are being laid off, and other long-term care aides and LPNs are being brought in. They're changing the way staffing is going to work to accommodate this.

[1600]

We know full well in our area that we have residential care facilities with openings, and it seems to me that we should be placing seniors in residential care beds and keeping our nurses in our facilities rather than reconfiguring to meet the needs of seniors in acute care. I just wonder if the minister could address that.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member, in the latter part of her question, actually nailed it pretty much bang on. It is a staffing change. So why is the staffing complement changing, which is, in the short term, impacting a number of nurses? There will be less RNs that will be servicing some of these folks, but there will be more LPNs, as the member correctly pointed out, and care aides.

Well, the reason is that alternative-level-of-care beds…. Typically, what is happening in health authorities, including Interior Health, is at the hospitals, including Kootenay regional that the member mentions…. What they are doing is putting those patients….

These will be patients that likely receive some form of acute care treatment. In most cases, generally, they are seniors, and some cases may be those with mental health issues. They're waiting to transition them back into the community, whether in a residential care bed or depending on what their specific case management officer will suggest is the appropriate level of care for those individuals.

What they are doing is aggregating those ALC — alternative-level-of-care — patients into one defined area, a ward or a defined part of the hospital so that they can change the staffing level that's required to look after them to a more appropriate staffing level. You don't need doctors and RNs looking after ACL patients. You can use LPNs, who are licensed practical nurses, or care aides to provide that level of care.

This is an appropriate way of dealing with ALC patients. The level of ALC patients within the system will fluctuate depending on time of year, etc. Typically, when we came into power in 2001 an average of 15 percent of patients in acute care beds were alternative-level-of-care, or ALC, patients. Today that average hovers around 11 percent.

There has been some increase, but there will always be ALC patients. I think that what is happening at Interior Health and the other health authorities is that they are making sure the staffing complement reflects the needs of those patients so that you're not requiring an acute level of staffing for patients who don't require an acute level of staffing.

In terms of the nurses, the good news, I can assure the member, is that any RN that may be displaced as a result of a change like this…. We have lots of demand for RNs in the health system in British Columbia, and they won't have any trouble finding new positions somewhere in our health care system in British Columbia. I can assure you of that.

K. Conroy: I'm sure that's very comforting for nurses to be told that you can go anywhere in the province and find a job when you've lived in the Kootenays all your life or lived in Trail all your life. That's a bit of a concern.

Also, the alternate level of care…. The seniors that are waiting in the psychiatric unit are not dealing with mental health issues. They're waiting for residential care beds. They need a residential care bed. There are openings in the residential care facility in the region, one very close to the regional hospital. It's unfunded. It was briefly funded a few years back, but that funding was taken away.

It's beds sitting there. It's proper care for seniors. It's in a long-term-care facility. It's not in the acute care facility. We know people that aren't getting into the acute care facility, and there are wait-lists for acute care for surgeries. There are seniors in the beds, and they could be in a long-term-care facility. They could be in a facility where not only would there be the proper level of care for them; it's also a facility that's geared for seniors.

Last time I checked, the psychiatric unit, although it's a great facility for persons with psychiatric issues, is not the greatest place for seniors to be taken care of. One of them has been there for six months. Six months in a psychiatric unit when you're waiting for an alternate level of care…. There are facilities. There are beds that are available. In the meantime, we're seeing this change of staffing.

One of the options for the five nurses that are being laid off is to go from steady days or shift work to steady nights. We're talking about nurses with an incredible
[ Page 2668 ]
level of seniority and skills, so that's not really an option. That's not a good option. It's not good enough to tell nurses, "Well, you can go anywhere in the province and work," when you've lived all or most of your working life at the same hospital.

[1605]

We need to look at ways of ensuring that seniors are adequately housed. I've been told by the management through the IH in the Kootenay region that it's in fact a lack of funding. They cannot fund the residential care facility, so it's a lack of funding. They're rejigging the staffing to meet the needs, and it's not meeting the needs appropriately.

Hon. K. Falcon: I think it's important for the member to know that every case of alternative-level-of-care patients that are in the system does not necessarily mean that those patients require a residential care bed. That is often not the case.

Every individual is different, and that's why there has to be an individual care plan in place for each of these individuals. You cannot and should not ever make the sort of sweeping assertion: "Oh, there is an alternative-level-of-care-bed patient here; therefore, they should be in the local residential care facility." That is not the case.

I do think, though, Member, that it is important to understand that we've always had ALC, or alternative-level-of-care, patients within the system. It was certainly an issue that the NDP during their ten years in power had to deal with. It's an issue that we have to deal with. One of the ways that you deal with it is by making sure you build additional capacity to provide continuum-of-care options for individuals who are looking for an assisted-living care bed to move to or a facility or a residential care facility for more complex needs or, indeed, even home support.

One thing I can tell the member is that Interior Health has added over 1,300 new residential care or assisted-living care beds in Interior Health alone since 2001. Frankly, that record, I think, compares very favourably to the 1,400 new beds that were added in the entire decade of the 1990s under the previous NDP government.

Have we achieved perfection yet? We certainly haven't. That's why we will continue to be investing in a very aggressive way in providing residential care options for seniors. But I do caution the member that those that are in an ALC setting aren't necessarily destined to residential care settings, so you don't want to make that direct line.

The other thing is that I do think it is fair to say that that is a change. It is a staffing level change. You have a case where registered nurses are no longer being required to look after patients that are not acute care patients. So yes, it impacts them, and it impacts the new staff that are being hired — the licensed practical nurses and the care aides that are being hired to look after those individuals.

It's hard for me to quibble with the health authority for trying to make sure that they align their staffing resources to better reflect the kind of care that is necessary and appropriate for individuals within the acute care setting. So I think that the decisions they're making…. In fact, other health authorities are making exactly the same kind of decisions to aggregate the alternative-level-of-care patients to a ward and ensure that they receive the adequate level of care for themselves. They do not require the same care that is required for those that are in acute care beds receiving acute care services from the medical professionals.

A. Dix: Just a question about the review of breast cancer tests in the Interior Health Authority. As you know, we've raised this issue on a number of occasions. I understand the B.C. Cancer Agency is now retesting the samples from Okanagan Health Services Area labs. I'm wondering where that's at and whether the results of that review will be published so that everyone in the area will know what transpired.

[1610]

Hon. K. Falcon: Interior Health, supported by the B.C. Cancer Agency, as the member would know, has been reviewing the issues raised regarding estrogen receptor testing in Kelowna in 2005. Interior Health completed the initial review and found no irregularities regarding the original diagnoses that were provided.

B.C. Cancer Agency then was brought in and supported that review by retesting the samples using a more modern, more sensitive test that wasn't available in 2005 when the original testing was completed. Not surprisingly, finishing that review, the Cancer Agency found that the IHA samples that they have done the testing on had some minor variation on some of those samples, and they're still reviewing the B.C. Cancer Agency control group as they complete that review.

The staff advised me, and the Cancer Agency advises, that the changes, the minor changes in some of the test results may or may not be clinically significant nor warrant treatment revisions.

But I understand that each of the individual patients has been contacted and that their oncologists are working with the patients and their primary physicians to determine if any changes to individual treatment regimes are recommended, based on the review and the testing and the retesting.

A. Dix: The question is: will the information be made public? The minister will know that these issues are brought to the…. I mean the aggregate data, obviously, not the individual data. Will the aggregate data…? Will a report be made, based on this retesting?

The minister will know that a long time passed after concerns were raised about this issue before action
[ Page 2669 ]
was taken. Concerns were raised in the fall of 2008 by a former employee, a former pathologist at the Interior Health Authority, Mr. Ready. The issues were even raised in this House in March, and the issue wasn't referred to the Cancer Agency until August.

[1615]

My question is: will the results, the aggregate data at least, in this long-delayed review and very seriously long-delayed review…? Will that information be published and made available to the public so that we can see what happened and what didn't happen with respect to this testing process?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised by staff that, certainly, we…. I can tell you this. My position is that we should be as open as we can possibly be with respect to this situation. I don't have any problem with that at all.

I am informed by staff that we take our advice from the B.C. Cancer Agency with respect to this. This is a relatively small group of individuals, and there is some concern that we have to be careful about those individuals being individually identified.

These are individuals that are dealing with issues of cancer. They are working closely with their general physicians and their oncologists with respect to this. They've all been contacted individually. I am advised by staff that we have to be sensitive to the privacy issues that are at play here and that we are, as I say, making sure the B.C. Cancer Agency is the one that is providing us advice in terms of the level of information that can be provided.

I have actually tried to provide as much information as I possibly can with respect to this — to point out that the testing samples that were retested, using a new, more sensitive test that wasn't even available back in 2005, did identify some anomalies and that the feeling is that the change in test results may or may not be clinically significant or even warrant any treatment revisions.

Again, each of those individuals has been individually contacted and is working with their general physician and their oncologist as to what, if any, revision in their treatment program would be required.

A. Dix: So the minister is saying that, in his view, there will be no release of the aggregate data from this review done by the B.C. Cancer Agency of what happened in the Interior Health Authority, where very serious issues were raised about practices with respect to this testing.

Hon. K. Falcon: That would largely depend on the advice of the B.C. Cancer Agency. As I say, we're dealing with a very small client population here, less than 60 individuals. There is some sensitivity around their own circumstances and, obviously, making sure that if you start talking about individual cases in a small population like that, it can become apparent to someone doing the most cursory review what individuals you may or may not be talking about. That's what I'm advised by staff.

As I say, I can assure the member that whatever advice the B.C. Cancer Agency is comfortable releasing that is not going to cause them problems in terms of the privacy issues associated with it, I will happily and gladly release. I think the results speak for themselves in terms of what was identified.

G. Coons: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Coons: In the gallery today is somebody I've talked about before, Mae-Jong Bowles, from Prince Rupert. She's a teacher, a good friend of mine. If you remember, she was one of the candidates for Seafaring Person of the Year. Mae is down here for the aboriginal reference group meeting, to review all of the full-day kindergarten with ministry staff and other agencies. Please make Mae welcome today.

Debate Continued

A. Dix: I just wanted to follow up with the minister with respect to cuts to surgeries in the Interior Health Authority. Interior Health Authority made me aware and the public aware that there were cuts in the neighbourhood of 328 surgeries, just to hip and knee surgeries, and also made us aware that an operating room is closing in Kamloops. I believe an operating room is closing in Trail. I believe other operating rooms, such as the one at Shuswap Lake and others, are seeing a reduction in hours.

Can the minister tell us, in terms of meeting his budgetary targets this year, how many elective surgeries have been reduced in the Interior Health Authority?

[1620]

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised by staff that by the end of this fiscal year we expect to see a net zero reduction in elective surgeries.

A. Dix: Can the minister just take us through the data? Presumably, there is some purpose why Mr. Neuner, who is in charge of the Kamloops region, suggests that a 10 percent cut was required in that region. Maybe we'll focus on the Kamloops region for a second. Has there been a reduction in the number of surgeries in the Kamloops region, as suggested, again, not by me but by Mr. Neuner?

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, Interior Health is projecting to do the same number of elective procedures this year
[ Page 2670 ]
as last year. With respect to Royal Inland, they undertook a review and found that the second emergency and emergent operating room had a utilization rate of only 55 percent, meaning that staffing and other resources weren't being used to full potential.

What they're doing is that.... The second operating room is being closed, I believe, in the evenings, and the emergency and emergent surgical slate is being expanded during the daytime hours when they have a full complement of staff, so there's a better utilization of staff at that time. They are changing the way they do things to ensure that the staff they have in place during the daytime shifts are doing more procedures when they've got full utilization and complement of staff.

But again, overall, at Interior Health they'll be doing the same number of elective procedures this year as last.

A. Dix: The next question I had for the minister was…. As the minister will know, the Premier's Council on Aging has recommended a dramatic expansion of home care and home support services. Kelowna, in fact, has a significant demand for those services. Can the minister explain why so many home care and home support workers are being laid off in the Kelowna area?

Hon. K. Falcon: This is actually the result of a good-news story in the sense that because we've built so many new facilities, there is absolutely zero waiting list right now with respect to home care.

In fact, we now have a situation where there is a surplus of staff that are, as I say, with no new, or zero, wait-list in terms of home care, home support. As a result of that, some of those staff, if my memory serves me correctly — and I'll double-check — may be being redeployed to the residential care sector. I could be wrong about that, so I want to double-check. But as I say, again, zero wait-list whatsoever.

A. Dix: Of course, the minister will know that that can potentially do with a number of things, including eligibility, given that we've seen reduced eligibility and access to home care and home support services.

I just have a further question about diagnostic procedures. We're trying to get down to sort of the core facts. While the minister is answering this, maybe he can answer on this surgery question. What was the number of elective surgeries that were done this year, and what was the number of elective surgeries that were done last year? Equally, the same with MRI exams.

[1625]

Hon. K. Falcon: We're just gathering up, and as we jump to different subjects, I would ask the member to understand that we have to then try to find the information with respect to those new areas.

Going back to the home support, I just want to confirm that as a result of the opening of 400 new supportive intermediate- and long-term-care beds in the Central Okanagan as of the end of October, there was not one single assessed client waiting for a service. So there's no wait-list at all. We're obviously pretty pleased with that.

As a result, of course, you've got a reduction in the number of community homeworkers in the home support program to match the reduced client demand. However, I think, again, the perspective would be that, naturally, you've got more staff working as a result of the 400 new beds that have opened in the Central Okanagan.

I think the important thing to also point out that I didn't mention in my previous answer is that clients will not see any changes whatsoever to the number of hours in the service hours that they currently receive. They may get it from a different community homeworker, but they won't receive any change whatsoever to the number of hours. It is an adjustment reflecting the reduced demand.

I will now endeavour to answer the balance of the member's questions.

[1630]

The member can probably see that staff is trying to get that. I know this is the member's time, so I don't want to slow down the process unnecessarily. They're trying to find the breakout number for you, Member.

What I can tell you is that Interior Health is, apparently, currently up 3½ percent in surgical procedures this year over last year and, as I mentioned, they expect to do…. There will be no change in the number of elective surgeries they are undertaking — zero change. But they are up this year over last year in terms of the numbers that they have done.

A. Dix: Perhaps the minister can just…. When staff get that information on MRIs, he can maybe provide it. Is what the minister has just said — that at this point in the fiscal year they're 3.5 percent ahead of last year and that their plan is to arrive and to land at the end of March 31 at zero percent...? Is that what I am to understand from his answer?

Hon. K. Falcon: Interior Health is currently up 3½ percent in surgical procedures over last year. I am advised that they expect to have no change in the total number of surgical procedures they will be performing, so that hopefully will clarify that for the member.

In terms of MRIs, we are endeavouring to still get the number for '09-10. The only numbers I have right now, Member, are that the number of scans in '01-02 was 2,585. The number of scans that were completed in 2008-2009 were 11,937, so that's a 362 percent increase over '01. As soon as I have the current number for the expected numbers of MRIs to be concluded this year — they'll have some sort of budgeted number somewhere — then I'll share that with the member.
[ Page 2671 ]

A. Dix: The minister will know that adult day programs, including all those that have seen their funding lost in the Fraser Health Authority, serve a really important role in ensuring that seniors don't end up in acute care and long-term care and are able to stay at home as long as possible.

I understand that cuts have been made to adult day programs in five communities in the Interior Health Authority, and that one community, Lillooet, has seen its program shut down entirely. What are the cuts? What communities have been cut? Why is the minister choosing to cut such valuable programs?

[1635]

Hon. K. Falcon: Again the member is throwing around the word "cuts." I want to remind the member that actually, the funding over the next three years for these programs is increasing by a further 24 percent in the Interior. There are absolutely no cuts to the dollars that are going into seniors care programs.

The program change, however, is driven by the fact that as Interior Health reviewed their adult day programs…. It's important to recognize that there are really two kinds of programs. There are the socialization programs that allow seniors to come together and do crafts or what have you, and then there are the medical adult day care programs, which I believe is what we're speaking with today.

That is where all the health authorities are focusing their dollars: to make sure that they are delivering concrete health services like bathing, physical therapy, occupational therapy — whatever the case may be.

In the case of Interior Health they reviewed their adult day programs and determined that the funded spaces were only 65 percent filled. What they want to do with these programs that have lower utilization and lower participation is to make sure that they set a target where at least 80 percent of the spaces will be utilized or used so that the staffing complement they're providing is appropriate. You want to make sure that you've got some patients there.

In the case of Lillooet, to put that in perspective, there were exactly two people that were attending the adult day program. That is a challenge, of course, when you have a staffing complement covering exactly two people.

[1640]

They are trying to be wise with the use of taxpayers' dollars, which we've debated in this House and pointed out that they are not unlimited. I wish we lived in a world where they were unlimited, but when even a 20 percent increase over the next three years in overall health funding is not enough — even in a world where in Interior Health they are increasing their funding for seniors programs by 24 percent, and that's still not enough — they look at their programs and say: "Well, it would be appropriate if we had a minimum level of participation in some of these programs."

As I say, in the case at Lillooet you had two individuals attending, and that represents a bit of a challenge. So they are, in the case of the delivery of their adult day care program, ensuring that there is an equivalent level of service, a standardized approach in delivering it, across the total service area.

Some areas will see increases in services. Others will see reductions if they haven't met the requirement for at least 80 percent attendance and utilization. That is the target they have set. They will work within that target to try and ensure that they do it in a manner that makes sense.

But I certainly would be hard-pressed to criticize them for trying to ensure that the 24 percent in increased dollars they're putting into senior programs is being spent appropriately and for ensuring that they have appropriate participation to justify the staff resources that are being applied.

A. Dix: What we're going to do now — just for the information of staff, who I always like to keep informed as things are going forward — is that the member for Delta South is going to ask some questions about health care in her community, and then we're going to follow that up with questions about the Northern Health Authority and the Fraser Health Authority from MLAs from those communities.

That's how we see the next little while. I'll turn it over to the member for Delta South.

V. Huntington: I just briefly wanted to apologize to the minister. I realized I had not forewarned you and your staff about the questions that I wanted to ask. They're all specific to Delta Hospital and the Fraser Health Authority, but primarily Delta Hospital.

At the moment, and I'm not sure whether it has happened at this point, the staff and the senior staff at the hospital are extremely concerned that the medical director is going to be or is about to be removed. Is it possible for your staff to advise you whether that is happening in other hospitals — whether it's unique to Delta Hospital — and of how they feel that incredible vacuum will be filled within the hospital administration and the medical administration?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm not aware of any issues regarding the medical director, so that's number one, and number two, I would also be very loath — even if I was aware, which I'm not — to discuss individual personnel issues at specific hospitals. I don't believe that's the role of the Minister of Health, but again, I'm not aware of anything with respect to the medical director at Delta.

V. Huntington: Thank you for that answer. It's certainly not specifically a personnel issue — except that it's the role itself, the office itself, I understand, that is being considered for removal.
[ Page 2672 ]

I just wonder…. Perhaps I can ask again: if that does happen, how does the administration or the FHA expect the hospital to cope with that medical-administrative vacuum?

[1645]

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, I want to emphasize that I'm not aware of this situation or issues with respect to the medical director, but what I can say is that any decisions like that, any personnel decisions, would be operational decisions of Fraser Health Authority.

They have to make those kinds of decisions every single day. I don't even begin to know the scope and scale of the personnel decisions they must make on a daily basis. But I am advised by staff that none of us are aware of an issue with respect to the medical director of the Delta Hospital.

V. Huntington: I'd like to thank the minister for that. I'm just hoping that not all of my questions fall into that category of operational decision-making.

The $150 million shortfall within FHA has led to a cascading 15 percent cut through all the programs, especially at Delta Hospital and in the system, one of which is to some of the elective surgeries.

My understanding is that the vascular surgery generally is considered an elective surgery. The medical staff are extremely concerned that this 15 percent cut to operating room time for what really are life-threatening situations, even though elective, is going to immediately create much longer wait-lists and much more serious operations as those waiting times carry on.

The issue for the FHA and for this hospital…. Apparently the aortic aneurysm program generally requires about a hundred surgeries. It has been set at 80. Now, with the 15 percent cut through the program, they're capped at 60.

My question is…. Apparently Vancouver General has not received any cap. Many of the patients, apparently, in the Fraser Health do go to the General. I'm wondering if you could advise why the aortic aneurysm program in Fraser Health has been capped.

Hon. K. Falcon: In a previous round of discussions we talked about the elective surgical volume reduction of 4.6 percent in Fraser Health. How Fraser Health is allocating those would obviously be a decision that they would make. The one thing I can assure the member is that all health authorities and all of the doctors involved prioritize their patients based upon surgical need.

There will be nobody who is requiring urgent or emergent care that will not be receiving it. The issue of wait-lists is decisions that are made by physicians in consultation with their patients, and I can assure the member that if there are individuals that require the care, they will get it. But the decisions as to how Fraser Health or, indeed, the health regions allocate the decisions around OR time and where they may decide to do surgeries are entirely operational decisions that they will be making. They're certainly not made by myself or my office in Victoria.

[1650]

V. Huntington: Perhaps I could ask, then…. I discussed very briefly with you the emergency room deficit that is existing at the Delta Hospital emergency room, where it has the highest FTE deficit in the province. I wondered if there was any opportunity you can provide us with how that is being resolved at the moment and whether the recent discussions have managed to redistribute some of those FTEs within the system.

The Chair: I'd just like to remind the member to ask questions through the Chair.

Hon. K. Falcon: Maybe I could ask the member to identify or explain what an FTE deficit is with respect to the Delta Hospital emergency department.

V. Huntington: It's an under-resourcing of the emergency room staffing. If your staff is not quite aware, perhaps…. There are 19 emergency rooms that operate under what is called an alternate payment plan. That's based on a workload model developed by the B.C. Medical Association. The deficit works against…. It's how many FTEs are needed for a specific level of patient care.

Delta Hospital right now has the highest percentage of under-resourcing in the province. The recent emergency medical committee meeting was, I believe, partially to discuss an agreement that was existing on the reallocation of FTEs among the different emergency rooms when they have high resource deficits. I'm using the ministry's own language here.

[1655]

Hon. K. Falcon: This is getting into some rather impressive minutiae with respect to the health authority, so I apologize to the member for some of the delay in pulling this together.

Individual health authorities are responsible for negotiating contracts with physicians for those ER groups. The parties essentially negotiate a contract within the alternative payments program subsidiary agreement outlined in the physician master agreement. As a result of the agreement, the Ministry of Health Services and the BCMA have a joint committee which collaborates in developing a more refined funding model for ER service contracts.

Essentially, what that means is that there are additional doctors that can be allocated to emergency departments, but those decisions are made on a case-by-case basis with the BCMA committee — which is called the emergency
[ Page 2673 ]
medicine section of the BCMA — working in collaboration with the Ministry of Health Services to determine the appropriate contract service levels.

That will be determined on a case-by-case basis, so naturally every hospital emergency department will make their case, as no doubt the emergency physicians at Delta are making to the member. But those discussions are ongoing, and I think it's appropriate that those decisions are, in fact, where they should be — with the emergency medicine section of the BCMA committee.

[1700]

V. Huntington: I'll accept the minister's comments that we'll wait for the decision to come out of the committee meetings, but I can assure the minister that if the mean under-resourcing of an ER is, say, 5.6 percent across the board, and Delta Hospital is 26 percent — the highest in the province, under-resourced — then if the committee doesn't resolve that in some way, shape or form, I'll be back asking the minister how we can fix that situation.

I think, Madam Chair, that some of my other questions will also be considered specific operational ones, so I'll sit down now and perhaps write the minister with some of those questions.

R. Austin: I'd like to ask a couple of questions that are pertinent to my riding of Skeena, the first one being in regards to the Kitimat hospital.

I don't know if the minister is aware, but we have two surgeons in Kitimat — an orthopedic surgeon and a general surgeon. The challenge that both these surgeons have been speaking about for quite some considerable time is that…. Of course, they operate in a fairly new hospital. It's a beautiful facility. The challenge for them, though, is in having enough beds available for them to do their work as surgeons. There is an overflow of elderly patients who are taking up acute care beds because there aren't enough facilities in the community for extended care.

My question to the minister is: is the ministry aware of that situation and the risk it poses? Of course, if two talented surgeons aren't able or feel they're being supported to do this important work, then they will look elsewhere around the province. Then we would be in serious difficulties in Kitimat.

My question is: is the minister aware of that ongoing situation, and are there any plans to build more extended care facilities in Kitimat? I would point out that over the last ten years more and more seniors are choosing to remain in the north.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

It used to be, when I first moved up north, that people would retire, and then they'd go down south for sunnier climes. But that's changed, and people are staying in both Terrace and Kitimat. So that is what has made this situation worse.

[1705]

Hon. K. Falcon: Northern Health has advised that there are approximately five alternate-level-of-care patients in acute care beds in the hospital awaiting placement in residential care. I think we've…. As I mentioned in previous answers to this question, the addition of 6,000 new units across the province and an additional 6,000 completely renovated and rehabilitated units is helping to deal with the whole issue of alternate-level-of-care patients in their acute care setting.

Northern Health also advises that since the start of this fiscal year, of the 161 surgeries that were completed at Kitimat hospital, only one surgery was rescheduled due to all of the acute care beds being utilized.

I think it's fair to say that cases can be rescheduled due to patient decisions or clinical reasons, but I am advised that in terms of acute care beds being the reason, only one surgery had to be rescheduled thus far in this fiscal year.

They've also undertaken an operational review of the hospital that was completed last year. They're taking a number of measures to improve the operational flow of patients in and through the hospital.

They are utilizing the lean method, which is borrowed from the Toyota company, in terms of looking at every single step along the decision continuum and trying to figure out how you can eliminate unnecessary steps to ensure that patients can get dealt with more quickly, more effectively and efficiently. That is something that is being done not just in Interior Health but other health authorities.

We're hopeful that the implementation of the recommendations coming out of the operational review will make what is a great health care facility even better for Kitimat and the region.

R. Austin: I would just comment and say that I'm aware there aren't a lot of surgeries that are rescheduled. The problem is that the acute care beds are continuously in use with extended care patients. So operations aren't even scheduled in the first instance because obviously the management of the hospital realize that a number of these beds are in continual use as long-term care beds. That's the problem there. I just wanted to make that point.

My second question is about the ATLAS Youth facility in Terrace that is being closed at the end of next month.

This is the only 30-day youth detox facility in the province. In fact, a majority of the beds…. There are five beds, and one separate bed that's funded a different way. The majority of the kids who've been coming to this over the last nine years actually aren't even from the north.
[ Page 2674 ]
That is one of the reasons why Northern Health has told me they're shutting it, because as of two years ago, they took over the entire funding of this facility.

When it was initially set up nine years ago, it was with provincial dollars, recognizing that the kids came from all over the province. Two years ago it came under the auspices of the Northern Health Authority. It reached a point where these beds were being used by a majority of kids from outside the region, yet Northern Health care was having to pay for it. So they're shutting this down.

My question to the minister is this. Knowing that young people get into trouble with drugs — and, in some cases, extremely serious addictions — is it not to our benefit collectively as a province to have a residential facility of this kind? In fact, a year and a half ago, in a study that was done within the Northern Health Authority, the lack of detox facilities, especially residential care, was examined, and it said that we need to have more. That was the report that came out a year and a half ago.

I'm just wondering now whether the Ministry of Health agrees with Northern Health authorities to shut this down, when in fact it's going against the grain of what we've been told we need in northwest B.C., which is more detox facilities, especially residential care, especially for young people.

[1710]

Hon. K. Falcon: The mental health and addictions funding in the north is increasing by 12 percent over the next three years. The member is correct that the operations of the ATLAS facility were the subject of a review done by Northern Health.

What the review found was that the facility was operating at about 60 percent capacity. The member correctly points out that of that 60 percent capacity, only a third of that was actually from Northern Health clientele. However, Northern Health has been paying for 100 percent of the beds in that facility, even given the fact that it's been operating at 60 percent capacity.

Going forward, what they will be doing is providing the residential youth addiction services through the Nechako youth programs that are operated out of Prince George. They will provide an enhanced transportation travel plan to cover the costs of moving clients who may be currently receiving services in Terrace to the Nechako programs in Prince George.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for the opportunity to ask some direct questions on this budget estimate vote. I would like to continue on the theme of addiction services in the northwest, particularly.

I was checking my notes, and two years ago the Conversation on Health was held in Smithers. I know how important the Premier — the emphasis he put on that…. The Minister of Health at that point, as well, wanted to hear from the citizens of the northwest around what their priorities on health care were. What better way to do it than to hear from the people who were actually accessing the services and knew on the ground what the realities were.

I couldn't find any minutes on the government website around that meeting, but I attended the meeting along with about 70 other people from the northwest. One of the main recommendations that came out of that meeting was the need for a residential addiction service facility for adults in the northwest, not north central but in the northwest, where we face some severe issues around addictions.

So my question under this budget estimate vote is: is there an allocation now to create a residential addiction service facility in the north to support the advice of those experts who were at the Conversation on Health?

[1715]

Hon. K. Falcon: A couple of things. The first is that in 2001 the total number of addiction beds that we had in the province of British Columbia was 874. Today the total number of addiction beds that we have in B.C. is 2,662. In terms of mental health and addiction housing spaces in the north, in 2001 we had 195. Today we have 456.

What is happening in Northern Health is that they have begun the integration of the addictions and mental health youth services continuum to better reflect the concurrent disorders that we talked about earlier so that we reflect what emerging best evidence and practices are telling us in terms of how best to deal with a clientele population that increasingly is presenting with both mental health and addiction challenges.

They continue to also invest in community outreach teams. Now, these are similar to the assertive community teams that we have heard about and that we're continuing to add throughout the Lower Mainland, Vancouver Island, Interior Health and in the north.

The Northern Health Authority mental health and addiction community outreach teams, based in Prince George, have five clinicians that provide assertive outreach specifically for youth with concurrent disorders and also provide outreach services in the northeast. The northwest has clinicians on the mental health and addiction teams that provide youth concurrent case management.

There are a number of steps that are being taken to deal with the issue of mental health and addictions. I'm informed that over the next three years the expenditures for mental health and addictions in the Northern Health Authority are increasing by 12.3 percent. It's more dollars and, in some cases, a different way of treating the challenges, based on the concurrent model and also based on the community outreach teams.

I'm not specifically familiar with the meeting that the member opposite attended with respect to…. I think
[ Page 2675 ]
the member mentioned it was in Smithers. This, I hope, provides some sense of the larger picture of what the Northern Health Authority is attempting and the direction they're attempting to move in terms of mental health and addiction planning.

D. Donaldson: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I'd point out that the meeting was actually of the Conversation on Health, the government's own process to solicit interest from people in the province around what the government could implement as its policy.

I'm talking of an addictions facility — not beds but an addictions facility in the northwest — and I'm talking about adults, not youth. Perhaps the minister may know that the NHA, in speaking to its head of addiction and mental health services, very recently said the direction that they will be heading is to day treatment and not residential facilities.

My question to him on this budget vote, then: is the NHA implementing government policy when it's focusing on day treatment, or is it the government's policy to follow its own Conversation on Health results and implement residential solutions?

[1720]

Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate…. I didn't catch that the member was referring to the Conversation on Health. I mean, the Conversation on Health had literally hundreds of recommendations and suggestions that were made in various communities across the province.

I think the important thing for the member to know is that what the health authorities are attempting to do is provide a continuum of service in the mental health and addictions field that is consistent with what best practices are telling us in terms of the kind of clients that we increasingly see presenting with mental health and, increasingly, both mental health and addiction challenges.

The member is right that the direction that we are moving towards is less towards facilities with permanent beds and more towards detoxification in home settings. Again, the evidence is suggesting that many individuals are better off detoxifying within their home settings. Not every individual requires an in-patient bed at a facility. We still will have those beds, of course. For some people, that is the appropriate level of treatment, but it is not the appropriate level for all.

The Northern Health Authority is acting on the best evidence as it comes forward to ensure that we provide a continuum of services for folks to ensure that each individual will receive the appropriate kind of treatment for their individual circumstance. In some cases that may be an in-patient bed at a facility. For others, as I say, it may be a detoxification at a home setting and an out-patient treatment program that can just as readily deal with their situation.

So again, to summarize: more dollars; increased dollars, again, over the next few years; and some changes to reflect what emerging evidence and best practices are informing the health authorities as they move forward.

We, again, I think, always have to really operate from the premise that we're never going to get it perfect. We have to be open to the idea that if we learn something new that suggests that we need to make adjustments in how we're providing treatments in this very important area and that reflects the range of individuals that you, by necessity, have to deal with, then we need to make those adjustments. But this is certainly the direction that we have come thus far.

I might, if I could, with the forbearance of the member for Stikine, request from the Chair a brief recess for myself and staff to take care of some issues.

The Chair: This House stands recessed until 5:30.

The committee recessed from 5:23 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that answer, to the minister. Yes, I concur. We're never getting it perfect.

What we're attempting to do on this side is help you get it better than it is. I've got a question along those lines, and that's about the microbiology lab services in the Smithers hospital and the Hazelton hospital. For time's sake, I'll ask a question that will have three parts to it. I hope you can keep track of them.

The first is that…. What we were advised by Northern Health was that it was a quality-of-service issue — the microbiology lab service cuts at the Smithers hospital. Then it was later revealed by Northern Health that it was cost savings.

I would ask the minister: what was it? Was it cost savings, or was it quality of service? If it was cost savings, then could he advise us how much cost savings were gained by this cut in service — not overall in the entire NHA region but specifically how much was gained in cost savings by the cut to microbiology lab services at the Smithers hospital?

Finally, the third part is if he could advise us of an analysis that was done on the cost savings. Did it take into account the cost of transporting the samples and the cost of increasing personnel at other areas, other hospitals, to deal with these samples? I'd appreciate some answers to those questions.

Hon. K. Falcon: This is, I think, a very important change, which is a very positive change on the quality side — better quality outcomes — and also savings from the health authority side.

[1735]
[ Page 2676 ]

I just want to walk the member through that to help the member and others that are paying attention today understand what we're doing.

Essentially, what's happening is they're consolidating microbiology tests that are labbed in the northwest part of the province. That's the plating, the growing and the studying of bacteria to inform a diagnosis. It's important to note that microbiology is a specialized diagnostic service. We also know, and best practices support, that the quality of microbiology diagnostic services improves with consolidation and doing more and being able to have the staff doing more of the procedures.

Our approach is to keep as much of the laboratory work as possible at the local hospital level, but where quality can be improved demonstrably and supported by best practices, there will be some consolidation. This is consistent with what is being done in the rest of the province or has been done in the rest of the province and, indeed, even in Northern Health several years ago.

The critical thing that I think is very, very important — and this is why nobody in the public in the north would have noticed any difference — is that the people, the individuals, the members, the residents of the north will still get all of their tests, blood tests and swabs done locally. That doesn't change. This is about where the specimen will get sent to be analyzed. That's the only thing that does change.

As I say, the analyzing of the specimens will change. For example, just a referral. As I mentioned, it's not effective from a quality perspective or even a productivity perspective to process a few microbiology specimens at each facility. So Queen Charlotte Hospital and Northern Haida Gwaii Hospital in Masset will refer to the Prince Rupert Hospital for their specimens to be analyzed. Kitimat General Hospital will refer to Mills Memorial Hospital in Terrace, and Bulkley Valley District Hospital in Smithers will also refer to Mills Memorial Hospital in Terrace.

Again, I am informed by staff that that redesign is driven by the fact that not only is that a cost-effective and efficient way of doing the lab analysis on these microbiology samples, but it is absolutely consistent with providing a quality level of service for the patients and physicians in the northern and northwest region.

B. Simpson: I just want to start off quickly by saying that I appreciate the relationship I have had and my office has had with Northern Health last term and continuing this term. I find that they deal with my office's requests in a professional manner, so anything I have to say by way of questions to the minister has nothing to do with the relationship that I have with Northern Health. I get that they're under significant constraints, both in terms of some of the things they're being asked to do by the government and some of the financing that they're having allocated to them.

My first question to the minister is: when will the north actually see 24-hour coverage on crisis line? This is a question that has been canvassed in question period, and I think the minister now understands the question better — or should understand.

Currently service is 14 hours. The crisis line is closed between 11 p.m. and 9 a.m. The minister just pointed that out as a best practice in reference to what was happening on Vancouver Island. I don't want an answer relative to what's happening on Vancouver Island; I want an answer relative to the north. The question is very simple. When will we see 24-hour coverage on the crisis line for the north?

[1740]

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised by staff that the line does operate 24 hours a day. I think it's important to note that. In fact, I'm also advised that an e-mail from the executive director, subsequent to the question that came up in question period, pointed out that they normally operate 24 hours just in Northern Health — in other words, dealt with by the Northern Health staff and volunteers.

Since the first of September they had to reduce that to 14 hours a day because: "We do not have enough volunteers to run 24 hours." They are in the process, I understand, of training up additional volunteers to try and help get them to a point where the 24-hour level of service can continue to be provided — all of it — from the north.

At the end of the 14 hours a day that it currently operates, the calls are automatically redirected to Vancouver Coastal's crisis line. Remember, for the benefit of those listening today, when someone is calling in a crisis, they're looking for an answer, a voice on the phone to help them work through the issues, which are often very common in the case of crisis lines. There is always coverage available 24-7, including in the north.

As I say, that coverage, 14 hours a day, is delivered right there in the north where they have temporarily run into a shortage of volunteers. They're in the midst of training some up. In the interim, after the 14 hours a day in which it operates, it is forwarded to another crisis line which deals with the calls on their behalf.

The other thing I would note, Member, is that in the '08-09 budget, we increased their contract for the crisis line to $208,726. That amount remains exactly the same for '09-10, and that is up from the '07-08 budget year when the contract amount was $135,856.

B. Simpson: Time constraints prevent me from getting into debate with the minister, so I am going to have to move on. But I hope the minister takes his responsibility seriously to offer a crisis line service by people who understand the communities that the crisis is coming from. Of course, we've canvassed it in question period, and I doubt that very much from this minister.
[ Page 2677 ]

The second question I've got — hopefully, it's a brief one, again because we are under time constraints — is with respect to HIV/AIDS, particularly in the north and first nations communities. Does the ministry have a plan in place to address what has been described by many, including one of the minister's colleagues, as a very serious issue, particularly in the younger population among first nations? Is there an HIV/AIDS-specific strategy for first nations, specifically along the Highway 16/97 corridor in the north?

[1745]

Hon. K. Falcon: I thank the member for his forbearance as I gathered the information. There's a lot of it, so I'll try and be as concise as I can responsibly be.

I think the first thing really worth noting is that AIDS research and the treatment of AIDS in British Columbia are at a level that is nothing short of…. Not the dollar amount, although the dollar amount is too, but the results that have been demonstrated, through the research and the trials and the delivery of HIV services in British Columbia, have made British Columbia a recognized leader internationally.

I don't want to take credit for that as government. I'd like to recognize some of the individuals, particularly Dr. Julio Montaner from the Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS in the Lower Mainland, which is Canada's largest HIV/AIDS research and treatment facility.

[1750]

We have now gotten to a point with AIDS, which used to be effectively a death sentence for people that were diagnosed with AIDS…. Now, treatment advances that have been made have largely made the disease a chronic but manageable illness going forward.

The Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS has a therapeutics guidelines committee, which provides advice and guidance to physicians, available throughout the province to ensure that treatment guidelines are based upon the best available evidence.

I guess one of the best ways to understand just how significant Dr. Montaner's contribution to the field has been is the very fact that he has been appointed as the president of the International AIDS Society.

In northern B.C. they have a strategy called Meeting the Challenge: A Blood-Borne Disease Strategy for Northern Health. It's a blood-borne strategy that includes increasing capacity in HIV/AIDS prevention programs, which includes conducting community readiness assessments and working with community-based agencies across the region to provide outreach services to clients, particularly those — and this is often the case in first nations — that may not access conventional health programs and facilities.

Recognizing that, the Northern Health Authority has put together teams that reach out into those communities to try and identify those individuals and ensure they get the treatment they need.

Member, for the purposes of brevity, I'll just touch upon…. Of course, the member will probably be aware of the AIDS prevention program in Prince George that operates out of the 3rd Avenue site, which provides harm reduction supplies, immunizations, prevention counselling and basic health services.

They've also got an extension of that AIDS program, in partnership with the Carrier-Sekani Family Services and Positive Living North, to provide the mobile wellness van, which provides mobile harm reduction services including supplies, distribution and recovery.

We also fund the Central Interior Native Health Society in Prince George to provide integrated primary care services to the disenfranchised and those that are either street-involved or close to being street-involved and therefore at risk to blood-borne pathogens, including AIDS.

Member, it goes on and on here, including Positive Living North West in Smithers, in Prince Rupert, in Quesnel and right throughout the north. Hopefully, that's somewhat helpful.

G. Coons: Thank you, Minister and staff, for the opportunity. Realizing the time and trying to be prudent with it, I'll try to be as concise as possible.

A couple of questions, one dealing with dialysis and another dealing with — a thought-provoking one, perhaps — addictions, and just touching on the audiology clinic in Prince Rupert.

As the minister and his staff know, there's a real concern with dialysis, especially for the first nations on the coast who have to travel at great expense and time. Their dialysis for first nations is three-times higher than the national average.

In Bella Bella, for example, a few people, including people from the band, are wondering if there are any initiatives or strategies or pilot projects out there to expand the kidney dialysis centres throughout the central coast. It's a huge cost, and it's something that's needed.

I'm just wondering if there are any initiatives, like a pilot project or something, for satellite dialysis unit or anything like that.

[1755]

Hon. K. Falcon: I thank the member for the question. The B.C. Renal Agency is the agency which plans and coordinates the care of patients with kidney disease throughout the province.

They've had some pretty significant accomplishments through early identification and intervention strategies that they have undertaken through B.C. Renal. They've reduced the annual growth of dialysis patients from 16 percent a year that we were seeing in the late '90s to 3 percent in 2008, despite the fact that there has been increasing incidence of the sort of feeder conditions like diabetes and heart disease.
[ Page 2678 ]

They've also developed provincial renal program guidelines, which provide a kind of methodology and principles for health authorities to determine where, when and how to develop ongoing care programs.

One of the areas that I know of…. The chair of the PHSA told me in a recent meeting I had that they've increased the capacity for home hemodialysis. This doesn't work in all cases, but in many cases, instead of having to have the patients come to a dialysis facility, they are increasingly finding the ability to provide home hemodialysis, which allows for more independence among some of the groups that are impacted.

There has also been work on the integration of transplant databases into a renal database, making British Columbia the only jurisdiction in Canada to have an integrated information system to track patients across the continuum of renal care from early identification and treatment to dialysis care and transplant.

I think, though, when we look at the issue — if we step back a step or two — that one of the things that is very, very clear to me is that preventative health can actually reduce or even eliminate in many cases the incidence of dialysis that the renal agency is responsible for overseeing. Reducing diabetes, high blood pressure and obesity, particularly in the first nations communities, is something that can have a dramatic and significant impact on ensuring that people don't have to find themselves in a position where they require dialysis.

[1800]

That is an area on the prevention side that I am working on — having staff access and pull together all of the various programs and services being offered throughout the province to figure out how we're delivering this multiplicity of programs, services, information pieces, etc., on the health promotion and prevention side and determining whether, in fact, we are doing everything we can possibly do to ensure that we try to get people early on into health prevention and promotion programs that can make a big difference in terms of keeping them out of the lineup of people coming in and requiring renal dialysis.

G. Coons: There's a real concern in the isolated communities that the home treatments may not be quite appropriate, but that's something that we can follow up on.

I'm sure you've heard the gamut from the north about addictions. I just wanted to echo the concerns, especially from our community, Prince Rupert out to Haida Gwaii, where the coastal communities, in their community-to-community meetings — Prince Rupert, Port Edward, Lax Kw'alaams, Hartley Bay, Metlakatla, Kitkatla — all saw alcohol and drug treatment centres as their number one priority. We seem to be going more towards a day program type of facility that…. In our region, in our community, we have lots of people working in that area, so there are concerns about that.

My question is…. The B.C. Medical Association had written a policy paper about eight months ago, dated March 2009, on addictions. They wrote a letter to the Premier and to the Minister of Health — and I'm sure the minister has seen this — to formally recognize addiction as a chronic, treatable disease under the B.C. Primary Care Charter and the B.C. chronic disease management program — and that our health care dollars be invested the same way we do for diabetes and heart disease.

Again, if that happens, if the minister takes that approach, perhaps we can look at addiction programs as being all-inclusive to regions throughout the province. My question is: is the minister considering looking at the B.C. Medical Association's proposal?

Hon. K. Falcon: We certainly agree with the BCMA with respect to addictions being a chronic illness. I don't think there's too much doubt about that. Certainly the BCMA report will be looked at and studied. I haven't had a chance to review it personally yet, but it will certainly be looked at in the context of the preparation of finalization of the ten-year mental health and addictions plan that the province is currently putting together in cooperation with the entire sort of stakeholder world out there in terms of the mental health and addictions side.

We've tried to work very closely with stakeholder groups to make sure that we are familiarizing ourselves with their particular concerns and priorities and make sure that we align that with the best practices that are being suggested in terms of how best to deal with mental health and addictions as we go forward. Certainly, the BCMA report will form part of that information process that is helping us as we put together and finalize the ten-year mental health and addictions plan in the province.

[1805]

M. Sather: I wanted to ask the minister about the seniors outreach services in Maple Ridge that were cut earlier this fall. We have over 300 seniors in our area receiving services. Some of these services are volunteer handyman programs and rides to medical appointments, including dialysis and chemotherapy. As well, they provide telephone support, home visits and shopping assistance. Community services in our communities have been providing this service for over 30 years. When they were eliminated, the spokesperson for Fraser Health said that they weren't essential services.

I wanted to ask the minister if he agrees or disagrees with that. But more importantly, I want to ask him if he would reinstate these important seniors outreach services in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows.

Hon. K. Falcon: I think this is a very important discussion point, because the decisions that have been made are certainly not easy, and it's not an indictment
[ Page 2679 ]
of the socialization programs that were delivered by many of these groups — not at all — but more, frankly, a recognition that in an era where health budgets are increasing almost 20 percent…. That 20 percent increase, or 2.4 billion additional dollars being added over the next three years to health authority budgets, is still not enough money for them, and there are still pressures within the system.

One of the things that we said to the health authorities — and I, absolutely, and we as government take responsibility for saying this — is that we expect them to live within a 20 percent budget increase, in spite of the fact that we know that there were pressures. Those pressures were identified back in February on page 45 of the budget — 3½ percent budget pressure.

One of the things that the authorities have done in the case of Fraser Health is that they've looked at the socialization programs being delivered — as I say, not that they are bad programs. Seniors socialization programs, whether it's driving them to appointments or whether it's providing tax preparation in some cases or whether it's, you know, bringing them together for card games or whatever the case may be, are important socialization projects that have taken place.

The issue is that they are not direct health funding issues, and Fraser Health and the other health authorities, including Vancouver Coastal, have said that they want to continue to fund those programs which provide direct medical benefit — for example, bathing programs or occupational health programs or rehab programs. Those are considered to be medical programs, which will continue to be funded.

Those socialization programs, though important, are not considered to be…. Particularly in an era where 20 percent is still not enough for some of these health authorities, they will not continue funding some of the socialization programs.

What are the options? The options are that there's an opportunity for the community to look at participating and funding those programs. There's an opportunity to look at a user-pay system that can help fund those programs, where you can have a cost associated with it for those that are participating.

I recognize that none of those are easy issues, but it seems to me to be appropriate, however difficult, in an era where a 20 percent funding increase still has pressures, that they focus every one of those dollars towards direct patient care. That is what they are doing in the case of the programs the member is referring to.

He didn't mention a specific program, so if the member wishes to discuss specifics, I'm happy to do that. I would need to know which specific program, because there are, of course, a number of programs delivered by the health authorities.

[1810]

M. Sather: Well, I did mention dialysis and chemotherapy treatment, but it certainly wouldn't be a socialization program.

I wanted to talk to the minister about the seniors who act as caregivers in my community. They're providing care at home and also for friends, family and loved ones in care, to a degree. Respite for them is very important. You can imagine the stresses on them. This was cancelled a couple of years ago. Has the minister considered or will the minister consider reinstating those respite programs, respite dollars for senior caregivers?

Secondly, these caregivers say to me that a stipend for them would be really helpful so that they could get some education on things like giving medications and bathing. So the two things, then: reinstating the dollars and a stipend for education on medications and bathing for senior caregivers.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm going to get the member a number on the respite beds. I'll get that for the member in a moment.

Two things that I would say. The first is that we have committed, as a government, to launch a caregivers website to provide increased support for family caregivers. That speaks to the issue the member raised in terms of making sure that we have an ability to provide caregivers appropriate levels of support and information so that they don't particularly feel isolated in the very important respite services that they are providing to loved ones.

[1815]

Also, as part of the Seniors in British Columbia: A Healthy Living Framework, which was released in September of 2008, the Ministry of Healthy Living is committed to exploring innovative and sustainable models to provide non-medical home support services.

It will be of interest to the member that the secretariat, which has been put in place under the Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport, will partner with the United Way of the Lower Mainland to develop and implement community action for seniors independent demonstration projects in up to five communities around the province.

The idea is that they want to try and see if they can develop a model for delivering services like this that engage community members and local organizations — including non-profits, faith and multicultural groups — to try to determine and develop an innovative service delivery model for these communities.

What will be of interest to the member is that three of the projects would be pilot projects that will be undertaken and will take place in Lower Mainland communities — in Surrey, Vancouver and Maple Ridge.

They are also going to be doing some community consultations. I understand they've gone through a round of consultations, and there is a second set of consultations scheduled. They will be doing a consultation in Maple Ridge on November 24, which I believe is
[ Page 2680 ]
tomorrow, if I've got my dates right. Hopefully, that will be of some help to the member, and I will just determine whether we've got the number of respite beds figure for the member.

H. Bains: I have a few questions about my area of health care in Surrey-Newton and the Delta area. As the minister will know, the decision was made to actually fast-track the expansion of the emergency room in Surrey Memorial Hospital. It originally was announced by the Minister of Health, then, and the Premier that it would be completed by 2010. Now my understanding is that it will not be completed until 2013 or 2014.

In the meantime, we get our constituents who tell us that when they take their loved ones to emergency wards, whether it's Surrey Memorial or Peace Arch or Delta, they are made to wait there for hours and hours. They all tell us that it's no reflection on the people who work in those emergency wards. It's that they are stretched beyond their capability to actually deal with them in a timely fashion.

My question to the minister is: what is being done now in order to make sure that the patients who walk into those emergency wards actually are seen in a timely fashion? Does the minister have what the average time is in the Surrey Memorial Hospital emergency ward from the time when the patient walks in, registers and is seen by a qualified doctor?

Hon. K. Falcon: This is extraordinarily good news. As you can imagine, the member is right in pointing out the initial date of completion being 2010. However, what changed along the road to the expansion of the emergency department is that we added significant new scope.

In addition to an emergency department which will be expanded five times larger than is currently there today, we're also adding a new hospital tower with 85 in-patient beds, including 48 neonatal intensive care beds in the hospital. Sixteen of those are net new beds, and as I say, 85 new in-patient beds.

That's why the time frame changes. It's because the scope increased dramatically to deal with exactly what the member is talking about.

[1820]

What's also taking place in Surrey — again, it's hard to believe there could be even more news that's good, positive news — is the fact that there's a new out-patient hospital under construction today, a $240 million out-patient hospital, which will be able to handle several hundred thousand more day surgeries that will not have to go to Surrey Memorial Hospital.

So you have a situation where some of the pressure that the member talks about, which is real in a fast-growing community, where individuals that are going to the emergency department to receive care will now be looked after at the out-patient hospital….The balance will receive the benefit of a new emergency department, which will be five times larger than the existing emergency department and, as I say, will include a number of new beds, an expanded lab, a new helipad to allow the helicopter to transport high-acuity patients there, 350 additional parking stalls — just a whole myriad of incredibly good news for the residents of Surrey.

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: All that I know. The member from the north — I can understand his jealousy. But I do have to point out that there has been significant investment in the Prince George hospital, which is now a university hospital in Prince George — and, of course, the new cancer care centre in Prince George, which is also going ahead.

The final thing I'll say on that point, because it's an important point, and I know we're up against time here…. I think the other part that I do have to emphasize that's important, particularly in the South Asian community, where there are many, many patients who do not have primary care physicians to look after them and therefore, when they find themselves with a health issue, they typically are presenting at the emergency department….

One of the goals that we are driving towards is to expand the primary care system model to ensure that we connect those patients with a primary care physician to provide them the care they need at the primary care–general practitioner level so that they aren't feeling a requirement to show up at the emergency department for many aspects of care that they require.

Madam Chair, noting the time, I move that 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 Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

Hon. B. Penner 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.
[ Page 2681 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

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

The committee met at 2:39 p.m.

On Vote 29: ministry operations, $85,227,000.

The Chair: We're doing the budget estimates on the Ministry of Finance. But before I start, I want to remind all members of the gallery that there is no use of cellular or BlackBerry or any hand-held devices. It's an honour system, and it's the same rules that apply in the big House.

For all people assisting the minister, they are allowed to use BlackBerrys, as is the minister — a Blackberry and computer — but the minister or members are not allowed to read from an electronic device.

[1440]

B. Ralston: I just want to confirm with the minister — and we've had a previous brief discussion about this — that also included in these discussions will be Vote 30, which is the Pacific Carbon Trust, and Votes 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48. I may have individual questions on those votes, depending on the amount of time that's available. I just want to confirm that we will, by what is now the practice before this committee, be able to direct questions in any area covered by those votes.

Hon. C. Hansen: It's certainly my understanding of the convention of this committee — or the estimates debates in either of the chambers — that under the first vote it can be fairly wide-ranging and could certainly cover those other areas — or, if the member wishes to wait until those particular votes are called, to deal with them at that time. I think the choice is up to him, but I'd be quite happy to field all those questions under this initial vote if he so chooses.

B. Ralston: I just want to confirm from the minister, in order to set the stage for a series of questions about the harmonized sales tax, that the ministry is working on what the government anticipates will be legislation here in the Legislature to bring into effect a harmonized sales tax.

Hon. C. Hansen: In terms of the legislation to actually activate the harmonized sales tax in British Columbia and Ontario, that would require federal legislation. The legislation that would be brought into the provincial Legislature is the legislation that would be required to repeal the existing provincial sales tax. It is the intention of this government to bring that legislation in, obviously, before the July 1 implementation date.

B. Ralston: In this year's budget, the minister has allocated a dollar amount of $750 million to presumably be spent in this budget year, this fiscal year which ends March 31. Is the minister saying that he contemplates the legislation here in this House will not take place before March 31, or was that a more general answer?

Hon. C. Hansen: The legislation that we will be introducing to this House is not required prior to the federal government living up to its commitment to transfer a portion of the $1.6 billion. That would be up to the federal government to provide within their appropriate parliamentary authority.

B. Ralston: Thank you to the minister for that response. Is the minister saying that legislation is required in the federal parliament before March 31, 2010, to authorize the expenditure of the $1.6 billion, which is part of the agreement between the province of British Columbia and the government of Canada?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I understand it, the federal government has the authority under the federal Excise Act to provide for that transfer to the province. But the other commitment the federal government has made is that the legislation that would be necessary to implement the HST would be introduced to the federal parliament before the end of the fiscal year.

[1445]

B. Ralston: I just want to be clear, because this obviously has some impact on the timing, and I'm sure that members of the public might be interested.

Is the minister saying that the federal government, pursuant to its powers under the Excise Act, has authority to transfer $1.6 billion to the province in the absence of specific legislation? Or is he saying that at the federal level, legislation is required to make that transfer and that that legislation is required before March 31? Three questions there, about the legislative capacity and authority of the federal parliament.

Hon. C. Hansen: It's the former. Under the Excise Act, there is the authority that the federal government would require to transfer the $1.6 billion, or a portion of it in the case of this fiscal year, to the province of British Columbia. It is not contingent on the HST implementation legislation being introduced, although it is our understanding that the federal government will be committing to table that legislation prior to the end of the fiscal year.
[ Page 2682 ]

B. Ralston: I think I understand the minister's point. Is it the minister's understanding, based on his advice from his counterparts in the federal Department of Finance, that a money bill — that is, a specific authorization, authorizing the expenditure of $1.6 billion — is required, regardless of powers under the Excise Act? Is there that kind of authorization required by the federal parliament?

I'm sure I don't need to add this for the minister's benefit, but just generally, in a minority parliament sometimes not every piece of legislation is passed. If that were to fail, it would precipitate an election, obviously, if that's the case. So I'm concerned for an answer on that topic.

Hon. C. Hansen: The federal legislation that currently is in place gives the federal government the power to transfer those funds to the province.

The Chair: Member, if I could remind the member that we're doing Vote 29, and the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in the Committee of Supply.

B. Ralston: I'm certainly guided by that, and I understand, pursuant to page 175 of Parliamentary Practice, that only administrative action of a department is open to debate.

I'm not talking about the necessity for legislation. I'm talking about the implementation of an initiative that's underway, and as the Chair may be aware, there are implementation rules which were being promulgated as recently as last week in pursuit of anticipated legislation. Obviously, I'd abide by your guidance, but I think I'm trying to stay well within the ambit of what's required pursuant to Standing Order 61.

The Chair: Member, I accept the words that you say. I want you to keep on track on Vote 29, and I'm aware of that section. Continue.

B. Ralston: I do have a series of questions. The minister signed an agreement between himself and the government of Canada, the comprehensive integrated tax coordination agreement — the minister's signature appears on page 6 in the English version — on July 23. I do have a series of questions about the memorandum of agreement.

On page 1 there's a reference under a heading that's entitled "Canada-British Columbia comprehensive integrated tax coordination agreement." It'd be hard to imagine something more complicated than that, I suppose. It says: "Canada and British Columbia will use their best efforts to enter into the Canada-British Columbia CITCA on or before September 30, 2009."

Can the minister explain what action has been taken, obviously in this fiscal year, as administrative action to meet that deadline, if it has been met?

[1450]

Hon. C. Hansen: Just for clarification. The comprehensive integrated tax coordination agreement — what we affectionately know as the CITCA agreement — has not yet been signed. When the member refers to my signature on the agreement in July, it was actually the memorandum of agreement that will lead to the signing of the CITCA agreement, not the actual CITCA agreement.

In the case of Ontario, the memorandum of agreement actually set a target date of September 9 to finalize their CITCA agreement. They have actually just finalized it last week, so it obviously took longer with both parties than they had originally anticipated.

The same is true of British Columbia. Our original target date, as the member noted, was September 30. We are still finalizing the terms of the CITCA agreement, and we expect that it will be signed in the near future.

B. Ralston: I take it from the minister's comments, then — from his reference to the Ontario process — that no penalties or no consequences flow from failing to meet that September 30, 2009, deadline?

Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, it was not a deadline. It was actually a target date that was set out in the memorandum of agreement. The member is correct that there are no penalties.

B. Ralston: Similarly, in the paragraph before the one I just referred to, on page 1 of the agreement, it says: "Canada and British Columbia agree to make their best efforts to fulfil the undertakings set out in this MOA in order that all policy and administrative details are finalized, including any necessary legislative processes and the signing of appropriate agreements, before March 31, 2010, except where otherwise specified in this MOA."

I take it that — perhaps the minister can correct me if I'm wrong — this was partly answered by the minister earlier, about that being a goal but not a necessary target. No consequences would flow if the province did not introduce or pass legislation before that date — and similarly on the federal side. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: I don't want to second-guess what the final language will be in the CITCA agreement, but it is my expectation that what we will finally land on is language that is the same as the Ontario agreement, and that is a requirement that the legislation to wind down the provincial sales tax would need to be introduced to our Legislature prior to the end of the fiscal year in order for British Columbia to receive its initial $750 million payment in this fiscal year.

B. Ralston: I appreciate the minister's efforts to answer questions to which there may not be certain answers.

My question is this, then. Given what has just been said, what flows from the possibility of that legislation
[ Page 2683 ]
introduced in the British Columbia Legislature — in the form that the minister has described, to repeal the provincial sales tax, the PST — if that date of March 31, 2010, is not adhered to and the legislation is not passed by then?

Hon. C. Hansen: What is set out in the memorandum of agreement — as the member noticed, I think — is "best efforts" to have this measure undertaken or the legislation introduced by the end of March. It is certainly our expectation that we will meet that, and I think that any other scenario is purely hypothetical.

[1455]

B. Ralston: Once again, I understand that it may be difficult to predict, but were the provincial legislation not to pass by that time, the minister is saying that, nonetheless, the $750 million, which is in this year's budget, would already have been transferred by the federal government. Or is the passing of the legislation by the provincial Legislature through all three stages and proclamation by the 31st of March a necessary precondition to the federal government transferring the $1.6 million?

Hon. C. Hansen: No. The only requirement is that the legislation be tabled for first reading in this Legislature.

B. Ralston: So just to conclude on this point, then, these are relatively flexible deadlines in this agreement. Is there any deadline that the minister regards as an absolute hard deadline that, if gone by, would jeopardize the implementation of the tax?

Hon. C. Hansen: We are proceeding on the assumption that all of the necessary implementation agreements will be passed by respective legislative bodies. Anything else, I think, would be speculative and hypothetical.

B. Ralston: But of course the interest is in the speculative and the hypothetical, as the minister well understands.

I want to turn the page, literally, to page 2 of the agreement, on the implementation date. That says: "Subject to both parties having signed the Canada–British Columbia CITCA and subject to legislative approval, the parties will work towards the imposition of the proposed BCVAT by the CRA/CBSA on July 1, 2010. Subject to these approvals, the CRA/CBSA will have the necessary systems in place to effectively implement the BCVAT on July 1, 2010."

So once again: is that deadline a hard deadline, or is that something subject to being overshot and the tax coming into effect later?

Hon. C. Hansen: It's my expectation that all of the respective parties will be in a position to implement this value-added tax on July 1.

B. Ralston: Can the minister foresee any legislative barriers or implementation difficulties that might make it impossible to achieve implementation on July 1, 2010?

Hon. C. Hansen: I do not anticipate any.

B. Ralston: Next in the agreement is federal transitional assistance, and this has obviously been talked about quite a fair bit by the minister, beginning in July and since then. It refers to federal transitional assistance to British Columbia. "Canada will make payments totalling $1.599 billion to British Columbia conditional on the execution and ratification of the Canada–British Columbia CITCA by British Columbia."

Can the minister explain what the term "conditional on the execution and ratification of the Canada–British Columbia CITCA by British Columbia" means?

Hon. C. Hansen: The memorandum of agreement that the member has referred to is the framework in which we have been proceeding and moving forward with the negotiations with the federal government with regard to the introduction and implementation of the HST next July 1.

It is the CITCA agreement that we discussed earlier, which will actually set out all of the operational details as to terms of how that relationship will work between the province and the federal government. The signing of that particular agreement is really pivotal and will be the basis of the relationship and the implementation of the HST.

[1500]

B. Ralston: The minister, I think, has made it clear that the federal negotiations with Ontario on the same topic have preoccupied the federal negotiators. I gather from what the minister has said that they're now focused on British Columbia. Is the minister in a position to give an anticipated date when this agreement might be completed and therefore available to the public?

Hon. C. Hansen: Soon.

B. Ralston: Well, that's more Delphic than usual, but I suppose I'll move on.

What the next section says is that the BCVAT — that is, the HST in British Columbia — will have the same tax pace as the goods and services tax, the GST, "subject to the exceptions described below." Can the minister tell the House what the GST tax base for British Columbia is, upon which all these calculations are being made?

Hon. C. Hansen: What that refers to is all of the goods and services in British Columbia, or indeed in Canada today, that are subject to the 5 percent federal goods and services tax. I think that the member is quite
[ Page 2684 ]
familiar with the things that are currently exempted or zero-rated under the current goods and services tax system. So when we talk about the GST tax base, it is that tax base to which the GST is currently applied in British Columbia.

B. Ralston: Will the minister provide a dollar amount of that GST tax base?

Hon. C. Hansen: It's approximately $95 billion.

B. Ralston: Can the minister explain how that's derived from the federal GST tax base?

Hon. C. Hansen: The $95 billion is the calculation by the federal government with regard to the ultimate price that consumers are charged for goods and services that are subject to the 5 percent goods and services tax.

B. Ralston: The $95 billion. Can the minister identify which budget year and which Statistics Canada database this comes from, for those members of the public — admittedly, they may be few, but there are some — who may want to make the same comparison and calculation themselves?

[1505]

Hon. C. Hansen: I don't have that exact year, but it's our understanding that it would be a very recent number, and this is a number that would be provided to us by the federal Department of Finance.

B. Ralston: The $95 billion — is that the basis for the calculation that has been made in the budget documents and publicly about the 5 percent exemptions? It's 5 percent of $95 billion. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: That's correct.

B. Ralston: There has been discussion in the news release and since then about the exemptions on the provincial side. Can the minister describe — because I don't think it's been entirely clear — the dollar value of the exemptions that are proposed? I'm particularly…. If the minister could start with the gasoline and motive fuels — what the dollar value of that per year will be as an exemption.

Hon. C. Hansen: The cost of the exemption for motor fuels amounts to an estimated $255 million, and that would be for the 2010-2011 year.

B. Ralston: Okay. Can the minister give the approximate dollar value in a similar fashion for the other proposed provincial exemptions?

Hon. C. Hansen: The total estimated cost on an annualized basis — so if it were a full 12 months — would be about $325 million. As I mentioned, the motor fuels component of that is about $255 million.

The other items total about $70 million. You could break that down. Books would be $27 million; children-sized clothing and footwear, $33 million; and the other items combined, about $10 million.

B. Ralston: This is taken from table 3 on page 85 of the budget. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: That's correct.

[1510]

B. Ralston: Can the minister, then, just explain to me how it works to calculate the value, should the tax be implemented, of the HST that's received by the province? The minister said it's a $95 billion GST tax base. I presume, and correct me if I'm wrong, that one would knock off approximately $4.9 billion as being the provincial 5 percent exemption, so a ballpark figure of $90 billion.

Can the minister explain, then, how the revenue — which is set out on table 3 on page 85 — of $5.56 billion is obtained? Can the minister take me through that in the steps? Don't feel that you need to leave out any detail. I'm sure that any detail would be helpful to assist me in understanding.

Hon. C. Hansen: This is set out in the budget documents from September 1 in table 3, which the member was referencing. So maybe if I walk through it.

If you look, for example…. This is based on full-year estimates, not just the nine months. It would be based on numbers from the '10-11 fiscal year as if they were for a full 12 months. So the HST revenue, as it notes, is $6.5 billion.

I think if the member looks back to the numbers we were using earlier of the net provincial portion of the HST, that tax base, as the member indicated, is about $90 billion. That would be a couple of years old. So it would be slightly higher than that today.

If you apply the 0.7 percent provincial portion of the HST to that tax base, you come up with approximately $6.3 billion, which I think the member will note compares relatively closely to the $6.5 billion that's in table 3, given that the $6.5 billion is actually probably a more current tax base number than we had used when we discussed the $95 billion earlier.

Then, from there, we can set out the costs of the various rebates that we have implemented. The one that would have to be amended is the new housing rebate in table 3. That, of course, was based on a threshold of $400,000 for new homes. We have, of course, announced that we're going to increase that to $525,000. The other numbers,
[ Page 2685 ]
we expect would not be changed since the September 1 budget date.

B. Ralston: So maybe the minister could help me with this. In order to collect the $6.5 billion from HST, as opposed to the $4.9 billion from the PST, there will have to be an additional $1.3 billion in HST payments in order to make table 3 accurate, if I'm correct. So can the minister explain where that will come from?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the member knows that the current GST tax base is broader than the existing PST tax base in the province. Just as today we have various PST exemptions that are in place, we will have various HST exemptions for the provincial portion that we discussed earlier.

As I mentioned, that would reduce the revenues by $325 million. The additional rebates that we are providing to municipalities and to not-for-profits will reduce that number again, and the new housing rebates and the home heating exemptions will also reduce that tax base again, bringing it to roughly the same amount as we currently collect under the PST today.

[1515]

B. Ralston: Perhaps I can just clarify my point, if I might. The present revenue from the provincial sales tax of approximately $5 billion…. A figure that's been mentioned as part of the public debate, mentioned by the minister beginning day one, was of $1.9 billion going back to business. I'm taking it that, of the $5 billion in PST that's presently paid, $1.9 billion of that will no longer be paid by business, leaving approximately $3 billion based on the current PST tax base.

If that's correct, then how does…? It looks like there's an additional $3.5 billion required to get up to the number that's referred to in table 3 from the HST. You started with the provincial PST. You take the $1.9 billion to business out of that. That's what you're left with. You have to raise $3.5 billion more. Where does that come from?

Hon. C. Hansen: The estimated $1.9 billion of embedded PST that we refer to is PST that gets paid on the cost of goods and services before they reach the consumer. So that $1.9 billion is built into the retail asking price, or the price to the consumer, of goods and services in British Columbia. What comes out of the system is that $1.9 billion, which will no longer be embedded in the cost that consumers are expected to pay.

The tax base for the ultimate HST is roughly comparable to the tax base for the GST today, which does include more goods and services than the existing provincial sales tax, tax base in the province.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that. I'm not sure that that's responsive to the question I asked. The $1.9 billion, presumably…. I think the purpose or the point of many of the minister's public statements is that business will no longer pay that $1.9 billion. We'll deal with industry-by-industry breakdowns perhaps a bit later, if we have time. That will no longer be paid by business. So is it not correct to say, given that the existing annual take from PST will be reduced by $1.9 billion, that a business will no longer be paying that portion or tax on those items?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think there's perhaps another way to look at the same issue. Let's look at it from the perspective of a product in British Columbia. If you're buying a 2-by-4, for example, at a lumber yard in the member's riding of Surrey, you will be paying…. In the retail price for that 2-by-4 is a portion of that $1.9 billion of embedded PST. Those costs come out of the cost of goods and services. All other things being equal, two years from now the price of goods currently subject to PST will be less, because that embedded PST comes out.

In terms of what the consumer is paying, the consumer will actually be taxed only once through the harmonized sales tax, rather than having the tax on the embedded tax that's built into the price of goods and services before they reach the consumer.

B. Ralston: Well, I understand the minister's wish to focus on the consumer, and that's a point that I think he's made repeatedly. But my focus in this question is on revenue to the provincial treasury.

[1520]

When that piece of lumber that the minister has spoken about is bought by someone in Surrey, the merchant collects PST, and that is remitted, at the present time, to the provincial treasury. That is no longer going to take place all the way along the value chain.

I presume that the compound of all those decisions is the $1.9 billion that the minister has referred to repeatedly in the public debate since July 23. Is my understanding correct? I'm happy to take advice from the minister that I'm wrong, if that's the case.

Hon. C. Hansen: I hesitate to say that the member is correct. He's essentially correct. I appreciate that it's not quite as simple as both he and I have been trying to portray. But basically, if you look at all of the PST — that is, the $1.9 billion — that is the cumulation of all of the PST that is paid on goods and services throughout the value chain before those goods and services reach the consumer. So essentially, yes, the member is correct.

B. Ralston: Then given that, if the existing annual take from PST is about $4.9 billion — ballpark $5 billion
[ Page 2686 ]
— and there's a reduction in that of $1.9 billion, given the elimination of all those sources of PST and the compounding of all of that into a single tax on the consumer, then it seems to me that the revenue on the provincial side diminishes. That's the first step. It goes down $1.9 billion.

Then in order to arrive at the number that is set out in table 3, the $6.5 billion — and we'll leave aside the exemptions for the moment — it seems to me that there's then approximately over $3 billion that the HST has to bring in, in addition to match that, to make that number. That's my concern. My focus is revenue to the treasury.

The minister has said that the tax is revenue-neutral, and let's accept for the moment that that is accurate. I'm wondering where the $3.2 billion or so is going to come from.

Hon. C. Hansen: To a certain extent, the member is comparing apples and oranges. The PST tax system is a very different system than the value-added tax system that is being adopted by 130 countries around the world and that British Columbia is about to adopt.

But having said that, the fact that at the end of the day there is about the same amount raised by the HST system as we currently raise under the PST system is partly because of the $1.9 billion of embedded PST that comes out before goods and services reach the consumer, offset by the broader tax base that applies to the HST, which currently does not apply to the provincial sales tax.

B. Ralston: Well, clearly, if I understand the tax correctly, business is not going to be paying that extra $3.2 billion, because they're going to be getting input tax credits. So that's the $1.9 billion that will come out of the value chain, as the minister puts it, or just simply, they're not going to be remitting PST on the piece of lumber as it moves through the process to the ultimate consumer.

Since business is not going to be paying that, who is going to pay the additional $3.2 billion? I suppose that's the question that people are asking.

Hon. C. Hansen: The same taxpayer that pays the $1.9 billion today is ultimately going to be paying under the HST system, and that is the consumer. The $1.9 billion that gets charged in PST throughout the value chain gets built into the costs of goods and services.

[1525]

While it may not be apparent to the consumer as to how much PST is embedded in the retail price of goods and services that they are buying, that is in fact part of the ultimate selling price of those goods and services. So those costs come out, and as I said before, all other things being equal, goods that are currently subject to PST in British Columbia will be less expensive in the future than they otherwise would be. Some goods — goods currently subject to PST today — even with the HST applied to them will, in fact, be less than they otherwise would be two years from today.

Then there are other goods which are not currently subject to PST today but only GST that will, in fact, be slightly more expensive to consumers at the end of the day.

The bottom line is there's a broader tax base, but it is the consumer that pays the price of PST today, and it is the consumer that will continue to pay under the harmonized sales tax system.

B. Ralston: I appreciate the conceptual point that the minister is making, and his position is that the consumer pays in either system, but as a practical matter right now the $1.9 billion is remitted by business. So business will not be paying it, and consumers of the ultimate product will be paying it directly on the price of any good or service that they may want to pay for.

I want the minister…. We can probably deal with this in the agreement. It's clear that the minister has the opportunity in the agreement, on page 2, to set B.C. rebate rates and thresholds — I'm looking at the bottom of page 2 — "for municipalities, universities, schools, colleges and hospitals, charities, qualifying NPOs and new housing, subject to matching other federal GST and administrative and structural parameters." Those groups are not likely to be paying the additional $3.2 billion to make up the difference either.

Will the minister agree that neither…? Regardless of his conceptual point of view, the cheque that's collected at the present time by business…. Given this rebate system, none of that will be paid by either business or any of these other entities or organizations, universities, schools, hospitals, charities, non-profit organizations either. They won't pay, and business won't pay.

Hon. C. Hansen: In the case of municipalities and not-for-profit organizations, what we have done, based on Stats Canada surveys, is calculated, with the assistance of the Department of Finance federally, the amount of incremental costs that these organizations would face as a result of the shift to the HST.

The rebate structure that we have put in place is unique to British Columbia because it reflects actual statistical data for British Columbia municipalities and not-for-profit organizations. They will also get the benefit of the embedded costs of PST coming out of the cost of goods and services that they consume. We have calculated what the net incremental cost would be, and that's what the rebate is based upon.

B. Ralston: Once again, just as a question of clarification, can the minister specify more precisely…? The minister has mentioned an actual statistical database.
[ Page 2687 ]
Should an interested member of the public wish to make that comparison for themselves, can the minister advise, based on advice from his staff, where that database might be found in order to make a similar calculation?

Hon. C. Hansen: Some of the calculation is on the input-output tables from Stats Canada, and part of it is based on the actual track record experience of the GST returns which, of course, those organizations currently have to file as well. There is currently, and has been right from the inception of the goods and services tax, a rebate system in place for those organizations, and that data also was used in making these calculations.

[1530]

B. Ralston: Given that the cheque to pay PST will no longer come from business…. Many of these organizations that are set out on page 2 such as charities and school boards will get a rebate, which means they, as organizations, will not be contributing anything to the provincial treasury in respect of the tax, because any tax they pay will be rebated dollar for dollar. In order to meet the dollar target that's set out in table 3 on page 85, an additional $3 billion will have to come from somewhere. Will the minister agree that that will come from B.C. families?

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. C. Hansen: Basically, the way a value-added tax works, and one of the reasons why it is one of the most efficient taxes around in the world, is because it does not wind up with tax being embedded into other costs. Just as a municipality, for example, would have to pass on whatever embedded PST they would have in their cost today, they would have to build that into their rate base and the taxes they charge their ratepayers in their municipalities.

Today under a value-added tax system, it is only the ultimate consumer that pays the tax and thereby avoids the tax on a tax, which we have under the current PST system.

B. Ralston: I'm not sure if the minister is agreeing with me or not. I suggest that he is — that given the way the tax works, business will not be paying the tax along the value chain. Other organizations will be receiving rebates, and the ultimate payer of the HST will be individuals and families in British Columbia who, as the ultimate consumer of services or goods, will be paying that. And that increment, to make the dollar amount that's spoken of in table 3 on page 85, will be approximately $3 billion.

The point I'm making is the operation of the tax, leaving aside all the value judgments that the minister makes about its efficacy and all that sort of thing…. I understand that argument, but I'm just interested in the source of the tax. I'm suggesting to the minister that ultimately it's going to be individual consumers and families who will pay the extra $3 billion or $3.1 billion here in British Columbia should the tax be implemented.

Hon. C. Hansen: That argument would only work if the member wants to totally ignore the $2.5 billion worth of exemptions and rebates that are part of this proposal. But the member…. I think I'll state again that the taxpayer who pays the PST today is the consumer. The taxpayer who will pay the HST once we make that shift will be the consumer.

If the member wants to believe that businesses who currently today pay PST as part of the value chain somehow go somewhere else to find the source of the revenue to pay that PST, then he can believe that. But that PST is all built into the cost of goods and services and is ultimately paid for by the consumer.

The beauty of the value-added tax system is that that tax gets paid once. It gets paid at the point of consumption with the ultimate sale to the consumer, and it does not wind up being embedded into the prices and hidden, as is currently the case in our PST system.

B. Ralston: Let's accept the minister's point just for the sake of argument, and the manner in which B.C. families are going to pay the tax is a different way. The minister says they're still paying it because of the way the PST works. I don't necessarily agree with that, but let's accept that for the moment. So B.C. families are going to be paying directly an additional $3.1 billion.

I appreciate the minister's point that they're going to pay one way or the other. But for the average person purchasing a haircut, a restaurant meal, a tourism guided expedition, the HST will be included on top of that price.

[1535]

To them, at least — mistaken as they may be, and as ignorant of the economic theory which the minister urges on us…. They will see that as an increase in the cost of that good or service. Does the minister accept that?

Hon. C. Hansen: I accept that there are some goods after HST is charged that will be more expensive than they are today. I will also accept that there are goods and services that will be less expensive once the HST is paid, because of the embedded PST that comes out of the system.

The member is using this $3 billion number that he purports is paid by families, but that is actually, I think, wilfully ignoring the fact that $227 million goes in to fund the low-income HST tax credit. There is another $173 million that goes into increasing the basic personal amount for provincial income tax, for personal income tax.
[ Page 2688 ]

He also is ignoring the $210 million for relief on the HST paid out of residential energy. He's also ignoring the $325 million which is the cost of the point-of-sale rebates. He is also ignoring the rebate of $285 million for municipalities and charities, for example, which will result in their taxes being less than they otherwise would be.

He's also ignoring the $500 million…. Actually, I should say more now. I haven't got the exact number in front of me, but it would probably be more in the $600 million range for the new-house rebate. Those are all things that will offset what would otherwise be an incremental burden on B.C. families.

B. Ralston: Leaving aside the argument that prices will fall…. Some of the very same economists that the minister has referred to don't support that point of view, generally. Will the minister not agree that the additional HST revenue that…?

Regardless of how one conceives of it in economic theory, the second way in which it will be paid will be directly by the consumer. Some calculations have it that the average person will pay $644 more — about $1,500 a family, or $2,578 for a family of four.

The Ministry of Finance obviously has a different calculation for how a family of four will be calculated. But given that an additional $3 billion will be paid — not by business and not by any of the other organizations that I referred to but by the consumer, by B.C. families — does the minister not agree that based on the number of families in the province and on that dollar amount, it will have that added cost to be paid for by B.C. families — a total of $2,500 a year, approximately, for a family of four?

Hon. C. Hansen: No, I don't agree, because it's not correct. The total amount of revenue that we collect today under a provincial sales tax system, as the member indicated, is approximately $5 billion. The total amount that we will collect on the provincial share of HST is about $5 billion.

Today the PST is paid for by consumers — whether it's initially paid for by a company and then built into the cost of goods and services or whether it's actually paid at the checkstand at the time of purchase. The net result is that under the HST system we collect the same amount.

The calculations that I think the member alluded to in terms of the impact on individuals and families — actually, table 2 in the budget document — are actually the calculations before that $1.9 billion of embedded PST comes out of the system.

If you look, for example, at that family of four with a $60,000 income, they get the benefit of the increase in the basic personal and spousal exemption on their personal income tax. The net impact that that family would pay in terms of a change would be an increase of about $134 a year, a far cry from what the member was alluding to.

[1540]

If you take, for example, a senior couple over the age of 65 with an income of about $30,000 a year, they would get the benefit of the HST income tax credit of about $260 a year. They would actually wind up with almost exactly the same cost under an HST system as they are currently paying under a PST system, and that's before the removal of that $1.9 billion of embedded PST costs that gets built into the cost of goods and services before it gets to the level of the consumer.

For example, just to go back and look at that senior couple, today that senior couple with a $30,000-a-year income would be paying about $756 a year in direct — that's at the point of consumption — provincial sales tax.

If you figure that probably about 40 percent of all of the PST that we collect in the province is not from the point of consumption — about 40 percent is actually that roughly $2 billion of embedded — then that senior couple is actually going to see the benefit in terms of their retail prices being several hundreds of dollars lower than they otherwise would have been if we did not make this change.

The member said that not all…. I think what I have said consistently is that prices in the future will be less than they otherwise would be as a result of the removal of that embedded PST.

No one can tell you, for example, what the cost of a pair of shoes is going to be two years from now, but what I can tell you is that with this shift to a value-added tax system, those pairs of shoes two years from now are going to be less than they otherwise would have been if we did not make that change.

B. Ralston: Just to return to the minister's statement about the $5 billion being raised one way or $5 billion being raised another way, I guess the point that I wish to make is that for the purposes of the argument I'm making — and I suggest it's accurate — the sources for the $5 billion after HST will not be from business. They will not be from the various organizations that receive rebates. They will be from the consumer, so the consumer will pay more in order to make the $5 billion a reality. There's no other….

Is the minister suggesting…? I understand that the minister's argument is that they're paying now indirectly. But this is a point I'm wanting to make, and I'm asking the minister whether he agrees with it: in order to generate the $5 billion in revenue, consumers will pay more because some of the other sources that remitted PST in the past will no longer be doing so. The focus will be on the consumer and on B.C. families.
[ Page 2689 ]

Hon. C. Hansen: Let's take a trucking company that moves produce from a warehouse in, let's say, Burnaby. That trucking company is going to move that produce down to a supermarket in Surrey, in the member's riding. The trucking company has to go out and buy new truck tires. Now, I would imagine that new truck tires for a commercial truck are probably about a thousand bucks each. PST would be about $70 per tire that the trucking company is paying. I would ask the member: who does he think pays that $70 to cover the PST on those truck tires?

B. Ralston: The assumption of the minister's example is that the produce that's carried by the truck will fall in value by an amount commensurate with the fact that the company is no longer paying the PST. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: That is correct to the extent that that PST is a cost within that trucking company that they have to build into the costs of their goods and services, which ultimately are paid for by the consumer. It's not that the owner of the trucking company is going to go to his…. I don't know — take it out of some other source of money.

A company has no choice when they have extra costs, which the PST is today. They have no choice but to build that into the prices that they are subsequently charging for their goods or services that they provide.

[1545]

B. Ralston: But then, surely the point is that in the latter situation, the company does not have to pass on that tax savings that they make in the form of lower prices. Is that not correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: I happen to know that the trucking industry in British Columbia is extremely competitive. If there is any company that would take a cost saving and not pass it on in price, it is going to go out of business pretty quickly, because their competition is actually going to scoop up that business — those companies that are going to pass on the savings. That is exactly how a competitive economy works.

I think the member is probably familiar with the study that was done by Prof. Michael Smart at the University of Toronto, where he looked at the issues around the implementation of the harmonized sales tax in Atlantic Canada. What he showed was that 75 percent of the embedded PST costs in fact came out of the cost of goods and services within the first 12 months.

The Chair: I will remind members that we seem to be getting into a debate away from the motion before the committee. I would remind members to try to keep to the motion on the floor.

B. Ralston: With respect, this is about preparations for the implementation of a tax. These are administrative matters. This affects the future government revenue.

The department is promulgating HST transition rules at this very moment, in the absence of legislation. It would seem to me, with respect — and I'm endeavouring to keep within the confines of Standing Order 61 — that this is pertinent to the proper subject of estimates debate and to the motion before the House. So if I might continue, Mr. Chair.

In the B.C. Progress Board's report Investment in British Columbia, which was dated December 12, 2008, the writers do point out some of the prospective impacts of introducing an HST. Let me quote from that.

"Revenue that would be lost from rebating taxes on business inputs would be replaced by broadening the tax base. Consumers would face higher taxes on a wide range of services and new housing currently exempt from the PST.

"Assuming a rate of 7 percent for the provincial portion of a harmonized sales tax, the total federal-plus-provincial sales tax would rise from 5 percent — the current GST rate — to 12 percent on items such as restaurant meals, home heating, basic cable and phone, and new condo units. In the short and medium term, lower-income British Columbians could see declines in real income as consumer prices rise."

They go on to say, "Public opposition to such a shift would be a substantial concern to policy-makers," and obviously that has proven to be true.

I'm interested in the minister's comments. Does he accept the words of the Progress Board that in the short and medium term, lower-income British Columbians could see declines in real income as consumer prices rise? Contrary to what the minister has said, B.C. Progress Board seems to think that consumer prices will rise.

They say the short term and the medium term. I think John Maynard Keynes, a learned economist, once said: "In the long run we're all dead." It seems to me that the time horizon for the price reductions the minister speaks of is a very long one indeed, if ever.

Hon. C. Hansen: There is nothing about the implementation of the harmonized sales tax that would drive up consumer prices before the application of the harmonized sales tax. I think that the member….

The Progress Board statement would be correct if there were no offsetting low-income tax credit. The low-income tax credit, which will result in a quarterly cheque being sent out to 1.1 million British Columbians, will more than offset any incremental cost that they would realize if they look at the retail prices plus the cost of HST.

That incremental cost of HST would be more than offset by the low-income tax credit for the vast, vast majority of low-income British Columbians who would be eligible for that tax credit.

I think the member is probably familiar with the study that was recently done by Don Drummond, chief economist for the Toronto Dominion Bank, that looked
[ Page 2690 ]
at the price on consumers after the application of the harmonized sales tax, or including the cost of the tax.

[1550]

As was noted in that study, the ultimate price to consumers, before taking into consideration things like the low-income tax credit or the increase in the basic personal exemption on personal income tax, would be just slightly above 1 percent.

B. Ralston: Again, the minister referred to Lessons in Harmony, the C.D. Howe Institute's paper by Michael Smart, and that's referred to in the budget, in a footnote, as the only supporting academic study. I'm looking at that report. He's endeavouring to analyze the impact on prices, and he says:

"Particularly notable, perhaps, is the estimated 1.4 percent price increase for shelter, reflecting the extension of the tax base to include purchases of new homes, and the 1.5 percent price increase for clothing and footwear, which…likely reflects the broader base of the HST. Since expenditure shares for these categories tend to be larger for low-income households, it suggests the possibility that the reform was regressive and that it raised average prices for low-income households while lowering prices overall."

Does the minister accept that statement in terms of the impact of this tax on lower-income households?

Hon. C. Hansen: Those comments in that particular study would not take into consideration the fact that in British Columbia there will be no HST applied to motor fuels. It also would not take into consideration the fact that we are exempting all home energy costs in British Columbia. We will be the only HST province in Canada to do that. It also would not take into consideration the very substantial threshold that we have for HST exemption for new housing.

When you start looking at the cost of new homes, including rental accommodations, to which in the future…. In fact, a new home that is valued at $225,000 or less will actually be slightly cheaper in an HST world than it is today.

The reason for that, which is actually well documented in a very good study that was done by economist Cameron Muir, who is with CMHC, in a report provided by the Real Estate Council…. I think it was provided to the Finance Committee of the House, which the member was part of.

In that study it shows that because we will no longer be charging the federal GST or the 5 percent federal share on embedded PST, then the cost of those new homes, particularly for those homes under $525,000, which would be the market of lower-income families in British Columbia, in fact would wind up being cheaper in an HST world.

B. Ralston: I'm just taking that the minister doesn't accept the proposition that is set forth in the Michael Smart study, because he says that other measures that are introduced in addition to the tax will, in his view, cancel out the effect that Mr. Smart speaks of in the study that is cited in the budget. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think when it comes to low- and modest-income British Columbians — as I mentioned, 1.1 million British Columbians — they will get the benefit of the low-income tax credit cheque that will come in the mail to them every three months. Other British Columbians who are in higher income categories…. In fact, a lot of those 1.1 million will also benefit from the higher basic personal exemption going up to $11,000 when calculating their provincial income tax.

In addition, those families in British Columbia will get the benefit of the exemptions from the list of exemptions that we as British Columbia have announced, including motor fuels and home energy costs.

B. Ralston: Just since we're talking about the proposed low-income tax credit, that applies to people earning less than $20,000 a year taxable income as an individual and less than $25,000 a year as a family. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: That is correct.

[1555]

B. Ralston: And there are 1.1 million British Columbians who fall into that category. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes.

B. Ralston: I want to turn back to the agreement that we were talking about, because I think we've moved a fair way from the agreement, but it was initially my intention to pursue some further questions on the agreement. On page 2 of the agreement: "The Canada–British Columbia CITCA will confirm British Columbia's flexibility, subject to reasonable notice provisions to increase or decrease the BCVAT after two years from the date of the BCVAT implementation."

Can the minister explain what that means? I take it to mean that after July 1, 2013, should all the legislation fall into place and be passed, the British Columbia government of the day would be in a position to lower the B.C. portion of the HST or raise it, depending on the policy inclinations.

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes. Two years after the implementation date — that will be July 1 of next year, so the member is correct — on July 1 of 2012, the province would have the flexibility to raise or lower the provincial HST rate from what will be the 7 percent rate introduced next July 1.

B. Ralston: The minister, in speaking of the implementation of the HST in interviews subsequent to July
[ Page 2691 ]
23, has spoken of the need to make the comparison with Ontario.

In some of his statements — I'm sure the minister can correct me if I'm inaccurate — his position was that the fact Ontario had begun in January to discuss it and introduced this in their budget in March became an important preoccupation of himself as Finance Minister and members of the government. This was a major factor in making the decision, ultimately, to announce the proposed imposition of an HST on July 23 of this year.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think probably the most important piece of information that I saw in the middle of May was a chart that shows the marginal effective tax rate on investment province by province, looking at the significant reduction in the marginal effective tax rate on investment that Ontario will enjoy as a result of the implementation of the HST.

I think, as I've made the comment in many of my speeches and interviews, for British Columbia to be trying to attract the literally tens of billions of dollars of investment that we will need to grow this economy in the years to come….

To be in that position of needing to attract the investment dollars but to be at such a considerable competitive disadvantage to Ontario would mean that the British Columbia economy would be severely held back from what would otherwise be achieved. It became very obvious to me very quickly that we needed to be in a position to implement the HST on the same date as Ontario.

B. Ralston: The minister refers to the marginal effective tax rates study of Ontario and British Columbia. Can the minister identify which study he is referring to?

Hon. C. Hansen: The table that I referred to is up on our website.

B. Ralston: Is that document prepared by…? I'm not familiar with that particular table. Can the minister identify whether that's a consumer report independent of government? Or is that something prepared by the Ministry of Finance along with some of the other promotional material about the HST on the ministry website?

Hon. C. Hansen: The table is also reproduced in the budget documents, page 78, that were tabled on September 1. It's a document that was prepared by the federal Department of Finance.

[1600]

B. Ralston: Given that concern that the minister has expressed, was there any comparison made to Alberta? In many of the documents — the documents of the Competition Council, for example — there's always an effort to compare with Alberta. Obviously, Alberta does not have a provincial sales tax and hasn't had one for some time. Nonetheless, given that relative disability, if I can put it that way, or disadvantage, the minister has never expressed that concern in dealing with competitive advantage with Alberta.

Ordinarily, the touchstone for points of comparison is Alberta. It's rare in the literature of the minister, in his speeches, for Ontario to ever appear, so I'm wondering what study, beyond a simple comparison of the marginal effective tax rate, made him come to the conclusion that billions of dollars of investment were at stake.

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is right. Alberta does have a significantly lower marginal effective tax rate on investment because of the fact they do not have the costs of the embedded provincial sales tax that we currently have in the B.C. economy. I think that if you look over the last couple of years, the amount of investment dollars that Alberta has been able to attract is very, very significant.

If we were in a position to attract into our forest industry, our mining sector or our technology sector in British Columbia comparable sizes of investment dollars that Alberta has been able to attract, the British Columbia economy would be farther ahead today as a result of that.

The member might want to argue that perhaps we should have made this shift three or four years ago, given that Alberta had that competitive disadvantage. This is certainly timely that we are catching up, to make sure that we can ensure that we are competitive.

We're not just competing for investment dollars with Alberta and Ontario and other parts of Canada; we're competing with investment dollars globally. Today there are literally trillions of dollars of funds from around the world, primarily out of the Middle East and China, that are looking for investment opportunities, and we need to make sure, as we come out of this global economic recession, that British Columbia is an attractive destination for those investment dollars.

B. Ralston: The decision to implement the HST is obviously a major shift in tax policy. Can the minister advise what studies the Ministry of Finance or any other ministry in government has done to support the assertion that he's just made that Alberta received billions of dollars more of investment based solely on the fact that they do not have a provincial sales tax?

That may be ideologically and temperamentally something he's inclined to do, but I'm wondering if the minister has any documented support or any study that he can point to that would suggest that that disadvantage was such that it affected the relative investment in British Columbia and Alberta to that degree.
[ Page 2692 ]

Hon. C. Hansen: I don't think that I said that it was simply because of the fact that they didn't have a provincial sales tax and the resulting embedded costs to investment, but it's rather the fact, I think, that there are parallels. I think that anybody who has followed the economic news over the last decade will realize that Alberta has been the beneficiary of significant amounts of investment that has been coming into that province.

B. Ralston: I just want to understand the minister, then. Is the minister saying that that factor just can't be isolated out in an analysis of relative investment in British Columbia and Alberta? It seems a little bit contrary to the flow of the rhetoric that we've heard from the government in the recent past, in the sense that to give Alberta credit for attracting billions and billions of dollars more of investment than British Columbia seems a little inconsistent with some of the statements the minister has made.

Is the minister saying that there is no study that supports his statement that the absence of a sales tax in Alberta has made a difference to investment decisions in a documented way?

[1605]

Hon. C. Hansen: As of the middle of May, when we made the decision that we should revisit our previous opposition to the HST, we certainly had the benefit of the Progress Board report that the member referenced earlier. We also had the benefit of the Michael Smart study that looked at investment flows into Atlantic Canada, and there was certainly the input that we had from other leading economists who have noted the beneficial effects of a value-added tax system.

B. Ralston: The minister raises the Michael Smart Lessons in Harmony, the C.D. Howe Institute study again. What that paper seemed to set out as a conclusion was that the HST implementation in the Maritimes — the three provinces, Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia — led only to a temporary increase in investment, and then it returned to what it had previously been. Mr. Smart said in his study that he was unable to isolate the cause of the increase in investment, and he could not attribute that to the implementation of the HST at all.

Is the minister relying on that study to support his conclusion that an implementation of an HST will bring more investment? It's not supported in that study.

Hon. C. Hansen: It's been a few months now since I last read the Michael Smart report, but I think he does…. Even in controlling for other factors such as the offshore oil and gas industry that was burgeoning at the time in Atlantic Canada, he also controlled for the fact that the HST rate that was implemented was lower than the combined PST-GST rate that had previously been there. Even with controlling for those factors, his conclusions were in fact that there were additional investment dollars attracted to it.

I think the bottom line is that when major investors are making decisions as to where to invest their capital dollars, they look at tax rates. The marginal effect of tax rate on investment is one of the key indicators that investors will look at. If you go to the Ministry of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development website, you will actually see some of the Invest B.C. materials that are used to help attract investors to look seriously at British Columbia.

The marginal effect of tax rate on investment is one of the key indicators that those investors would be looking for. This change, this shift to the harmonized sales tax, will result in a 40 percent reduction in that marginal effective tax rate.

B. Ralston: Let's go back to the Michael Smart study, because that's not what he said. He said: "It's important to emphasize that the increase in investment caused by the HST reform is a short-run phenomenon as firms have acted to adjust to the new higher capital stock that is desired when taxes are lower."

Then he goes on to talk about: "Whereas the investment effect is transitory, the effect on capital stock and labour productivity is presumably long-run and permanent. However, my empirical methodology, discussed below, does not allow these long-run effects to be estimated directly."

He's saying he basically doesn't know. There is a short-run effect, and that may be explained simply by investors artificially delaying a decision until the new tax regime comes into effect. Once that short-term effect has dissipated, it then returns to the same level as before.

This is the only document that is cited in the budget document in support of this. Is this the thin thread by which the minister supports his argument that investment will increase?

[1610]

Hon. C. Hansen: There's also a very substantive report that was done by Jack Mintz co-authored with…. Actually, Mintz and Wilson, although I haven't got Professor — I assume — Wilson's first name. It was in 2007, and it shows that there were significant investment benefits.

There's also a more recent report that was produced by Jack Mintz, by the school of public policy at the University of Calgary where Jack Mintz is now chair of public policy. That study looked specifically at Ontario, where his estimate is that it will increase capital investment by $47 billion within ten years in Ontario. I think there are several other studies out there that indicate the benefit to investment folks.
[ Page 2693 ]

B. Ralston: Well, I appreciate that Mr. Mintz has been hired by the Ontario government to produce…. I think that's the report that the minister is referring to, so it's probably not a surprise that he's come to a conclusion that the Ontario government is happy with, in any event. But that study is not cited in the budget documents.

I want to talk a little bit further about the PST exemptions that now exist. The minister will be familiar with what happened. I believe this is on page 138 of the budget, which is a table of the revenue measures taken from July 30, 2001, until the budget of September 1, 2009.

One of those measures, under the Social Service Tax Act, was a tax exemption for production machinery and equipment, and that came into effect July 31, 2001. Now, as the minister will be aware, a lot of the studies on productivity focus on exempting production machinery and equipment from tax for obvious reasons. You want to incent businesses to invest in production machinery and equipment. That exemption has been in place since that time.

Can the minister explain or point to any studies that measure the efficacy of that particular tax relief and its effect on productivity? I am told — and I'm not sure whether this is accurate; perhaps the minister can confirm — that it was an approximately $110 million a year tax expenditure. Ordinarily when the government spends $110 million there's a case to justify that, and there's some monitoring of that since then.

If that's the case, obviously many hundreds of millions of tax dollars have been forgone. I'm wondering what the reciprocal measure of the increase in investment and productivity is in the B.C. economy, given that tax measure.

Hon. C. Hansen: While there are no specific studies that look at that precise measure, I think that if you look at what's happened in the B.C. economy over the last eight years you'll see an economy that went from actually having the least economic growth of any province in Canada to the province that was, in most years and quarters, leading Canadian economic growth over that period of time.

[1615]

I think we certainly can point to lots of examples where the private sector has stepped up and created jobs in this province over the last eight years. But one of the problems with the measure that the member is referencing is that it was very limited in scope.

It certainly helped, and we had great feedback from a lot of companies that said that that made a big difference in their decisions to invest in British Columbia, but it was fairly narrow in its scope in terms of what costs in the production chain it applied to. It did not address a lot of their embedded PST costs that they're currently facing today, so with the HST system, that will address the balance of the embedded PST costs that they're facing.

B. Ralston: To begin with the response, can the minister then confirm, at least roughly — I know there's an array of officials there with him — my rough estimation of $110 million a year in forgone revenue due to this break, beginning in 2001?

If one were to extend it, obviously, over the nine years, that would be close to a billion dollars in forgone tax revenue. I'd appreciate it. At least in the first year or two, it may be possible to have a number, and if the minister doesn't have it available, I'd appreciate being advised later.

Hon. C. Hansen: As I understand it, when that measure was introduced, it was actually to replace a previous tax credit that had been in place, so the PST exemption replaced the previous tax credit system that had been there. I think that the member is correct that the net cost, to the best of the recollection of staff that are with me today, is in that range of $110 million.

B. Ralston: Given that, the minister then relates some anecdotes from companies. Is the minister saying that for a tax expenditure of that magnitude, there is no study to support either the decision or the decision to continue it? Surely the responsible course in taking a tax expenditure is to monitor it, measure its efficacy and decide whether it should be continued, modified, extended or whatever.

Can the minister point to or direct me to a study that supports his conclusion beyond the anecdotal?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think that as the member will know, in those last eight years, and particularly in those first few years of this government, there were many measures that were taken to help create jobs around the province and to help support the industries that B.C. families depend on. So this was one of the measures.

I think when you take all of these measures combined, you can see the tremendous success that we've had in job creation in British Columbia, where we had seen — actually, even if you take into account the slight increase in unemployment in the last 12 months — a net increase of new jobs in British Columbia, about 380,000, and at one point British Columbia having the lowest unemployment rate on record in the province since data was being kept.

I think those are the kinds of outcomes that were driven as a result of the various changes that we made, and the PST exemption on equipment and machinery was simply one of many changes.

B. Ralston: So the minister is confirming that it's a hunch that it may have had an effect, but it may not have
[ Page 2694 ]
had an effect. No one really knows, I take it. It's assumed that it had an effect, but there's no study to support it.

[1620]

Perhaps the minister can then help me with this. In Budget 2006 — again, on page 139 of the budget, under social services tax — there was a tax measure to clarify and expand eligibility for machinery and equipment exemption, something that was brought in, in 2001. There was obviously a decision taken to expand that.

Can the minister advise or seek advice from his officials as to whether there was any study at that time as to the efficacy of this tax measure. Again, it's called a tax expenditure because you are, in effect, forgoing revenue — in effect, spending money. That's why it's called a tax expenditure.

One would think that there would be some study to support that kind of decision. Can the minister explain why the decision was taken in 2006 and what studies there were to support expanding that particular PST exemption?

Hon. C. Hansen: I am cognizant that we are, I think, now probably departing quite a ways from what estimates are about when we're starting to go back to tax changes that were made in 2003-2006.

The changes that were made in 2006 were really driven by examples that were coming forward where there was a need for more clarity around what the equipment and machinery exemption would apply to and where there was some confusion over what things would qualify and what things would not qualify. So the 2006 changes were, in fact, to provide clarification and simplification of how that initial measure would be administered.

B. Ralston: Once again, I'm taking it that beyond responding on a case-by-case basis, there's no study that measures the efficacy or not of this measure.

Just dealing with the further issue of proposed PST exemptions…. Because, of course, if this measure is adopted, they will all be gone and will all be ended with the exception of the very, very few that have been set out in the news release at the outset, but certainly none of the ones that we're speaking of.

In its report a couple years ago the Competition Council, again focusing on PST exemptions on machinery and equipment, recommended an incentive be given to certain ICT — information and communications technology — expenditures in order to accelerate industry productivity improvements. This could be either by an exemption for PST or an equivalent credit against income. The annual cost of this is estimated at $75 million to $85 million. It doesn't appear that that was acted upon.

It would seem that there was a case made out and developed by the Competition Council for this kind of focused PST exemption because it focused directly on productivity, and there seems to be some documentary support for that as opposed to the more broad-based assertions that are made on behalf of the HST.

Can the minister explain why this particular option, recommended by the Competition Council, wasn't brought into place instead of implementing the HST as it's proposed, should it pass the Legislature and the parliament?

Hon. C. Hansen: The recommendations of the Competition Council were all looked at by government as part of the review that is done internally, leading up to budgets, and the policy work that's done by ministries. That particular initiative — to implement it would have been quite difficult to do in a PST world, because you wind up with both commercial or business use of that technology combined with personal use.

[1625]

I think that the advantage of a value-added tax system is that it allows for the tax burden not to be built into the cost of goods and services but, in fact, only to be paid once, and that's at the point of consumption.

B. Ralston: Other exemptions that will be ended, should the HST legislation come into effect, will be many of those introduced in the so-called green budget.

I'm looking at a table on page 20 of the budget for 2008-2009. There are a number of PST exemptions for certain conventional fuel-efficient vehicles; for Energy Star–qualified refrigerators and clothes washers; PST exemption for energy-efficient, residential, gas-fired water heaters; PST exemption for production machinery and equipment for local governments for power production and generation; PST exemption for electric, power-assisted, two- and three-wheel cycles; PST reduction for hydrogen fuel cell buses; PST reduction for electric motorcycles of 50 percent; PST exemption for insulation; PST exemption for biofuel; PST exemption for certain aerodynamic devices; and PST applied to coke and coal except where purchased for use in a residential dwelling unit.

Of course, the minister will recall that there was much fanfare about this budget. These PST exemptions were taken as the very hallmark of the policy move forward that the government was taking. They were pointed to, and the minister spoke of them.

The minister has said in an interview on July 28, 2009 with Mr. Harrison of CHNL that…. The question is: "Does B.C.'s HST envision doing away with the PST exemption for bicycles?" That's yet another environmental measure which has been in place, actually, since the 1980s.

The answer from the minister is: "Yes, there will be no PST system after July 1 of next year, but that's one of the things we have to give up. You know, it was nice for the province to be able to say: 'Well, this is exempt, and
[ Page 2695 ]
that's exempt.' I'll tell you, from the retailers' perspective, the administration of the PST system was hugely frustrating." Then he goes on to mention compliance costs.

So it seems to be an incredibly long way…. It's hard to know what to make of the rhetoric that was associated with this budget. Those tax measures are still in place right now, as we speak. The ministry, I'm sure, has some calculation of revenue forgone. There's a tax expenditure there.

Can the minister explain how he reconciles the lofty rhetoric and statements of the government on the occasion of this budget and his statements that "Well, when HST comes, all these things that we talked about, all these things that we proclaimed to the skies, are all gone. It would be nice to have them, but now we don't, or it's proposed that we don't, and it's all over." It seems to be a real gap between that rhetoric and the kind of language that was used and the kind of self-congratulatory messages that were given and the reality of the HST — that none of these exemptions will exist anymore.

Hon. C. Hansen: The bottom line is that when you no longer have a provincial sales tax, you cannot have a system by which you provide exemptions from a provincial sales tax.

You know, if you look at the green agenda that was set out in that budget, whether it's working with municipalities to ensure that they become carbon-neutral, working with school districts so that they become carbon-neutral or the implementation of the carbon tax to incent consumers, whether they be businesses or individuals, to change their consumption patterns to ensure that we can meet our carbon dioxide, CO2, targets by 2020, those are all measures that are important.

[1630]

The member will know that many of the PST exemptions brought in on that budget were time-limited. Some of them will expire even before July 1 of next year, and others that were scheduled to have expired later will, in fact…. Because the PST will no longer exist, so will the exemptions no longer exist.

I think that we have a climate action plan in this province that we're proud of. The PST exemptions formed one small part of the initial stages of that, but when you look at the rest of the climate action agenda it's well on track, and we are confident that we'll be able to achieve the targets that have been set out.

B. Ralston: I'm sure the minister will answer that the consumers are already paying this tax, but can the minister explain, for example, the environmental value of increasing the cost of bicycles that were PST-exempt? Obviously, it's now going to be subject to the extra 12 percent of the HST. Can the minister explain how that advances the environmental agenda that he just spoke of a moment ago?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the member will be aware of the very, very significant investment that this government has put in to bike paths around the province. When he talks to groups that promote cycling in the province, I think that they will point to that as probably the single biggest thing that encourages bicycle use in British Columbia.

It's also in recognition that there are some things that are today not subject to PST that will be subject to the new harmonized sales tax when it is implemented. That's exactly why we have brought in the low-income tax credit for 1.1 million British Columbians and also the increase in the basic personal exemption to $11,000 for personal income tax — so that there is more money left in people's pockets. That will help them offset some of these incremental costs that they need bear on things that are currently PST-exempt.

[J. McIntyre in the chair.]

B. Ralston: Madam Chair, welcome to the chair.

Shortly before May 12 a statement was issued on behalf of the minister's party. It said in response to a specific question from the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association:

"While some British Columbians have suggested that a harmonized PST and GST might be beneficial, others have pointed out that it would extend the PST tax base to a broader range of goods and services that are presently exempt from provincial sales tax. The B.C. Liberals are also mindful that a harmonized sales tax would reduce the provincial government's ability to unilaterally adjust sales tax rates. The harmonized GST would make it harder for future provincial governments to lower or raise sales taxes, which reduces flexibility.

"In short, a harmonized GST is not something that is contemplated in the B.C. Liberal platform, but we are committed to improving the tax system."

Does the minister agree with that statement?

Hon. C. Hansen: The statement is correct. It was not contemplated in the platform. We had previously looked at the issues around HST from time to time, actually, in the years previous, and had made the decision that that was not a road we wanted to go down. The information that became apparent subsequent to the election prompted us to revisit that previous decision.

B. Ralston: The comment that's in this statement by the minister's party is: "The harmonized GST would reduce the provincial government's ability to unilaterally adjust sales tax rates." It would seem that these examples that have just been provided would be a good illustration of that — for example, the tax on bicycles. That's no longer possible.

That seems to be the position of the minister's party prior to the election. What changes his point of view on that?
[ Page 2696 ]

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the statement is factual. In fact, under the HST system the province of British Columbia will have less flexibility to amend its consumer tax rates.

[1635]

I think, as we discussed earlier, there is still a provision in the agreement — this, again, is something that is new — that was not there in discussions over previous years with the federal government. That is, the ability for the province to be able to adjust its provincial share of the HST rate two years after the implementation. There is still flexibility there that is new. Again, that increased flexibility was certainly a factor in the deliberations we undertook before announcing that we had changed our previous position on HST.

I think the statement that the member read out is in fact accurate. There is less flexibility, but on balance, we believe the benefits outweigh the disadvantages of that decreased flexibility.

B. Ralston: Does the minister agree that a plain reading of that statement made prior to the election would likely give comfort to the Canadian Restaurant Association — that no HST was going to be implemented after the election if, as it turned out, the minister's party won the election?

Hon. C. Hansen: I've had several discussions with the association, but I would not be in a position to speculate on how they may or may not interpret that.

B. Ralston: Well, I can appreciate that the minister wants to be cautious around this. I think the ordinary person reading that would conclude the B.C. Liberal Party was saying before the election that they didn't intend to bring in an HST, a harmonized sales tax. But the minister has, obviously, chosen not to answer that, so I want to move on to a slightly different area.

The minister has said, in public discussion, that there are certain benefits that will flow to certain sectors of the economy. He's given a number of numbers. These are on the Ministry of Finance's website and appear regularly. I think they were in the initial press release.

I can start with an $880 million benefit annually to the construction industry. I'm wondering: can the minister advise how that figure was arrived at? If there is a study that supports that, can the minister point me to it — or any member of the public who wants to scrutinize the assertion that's made on behalf of the minister and the government?

Hon. C. Hansen: If I can just share with you some of the staff notes on how these calculations were done, the dollar savings is the estimated difference between the dollar amount of PST the sector would have paid without harmonization and the dollar amount of provincial HST that will be paid under a harmonized system. It is the net reduction in the sales tax burden for the sector — i.e., how much less sales tax the sector will pay due to harmonization.

The source for the calculations is the Statistics Canada 2005 provincial input-output tables, and the figures are projected using forecasts from the Conference Board of Canada.

B. Ralston: Is that the case with each of the other numbers? I expect it is, but I just want to confirm this. So $140 million for manufacturing, $210 million for transportation, $140 million for forestry and $80 million for mining and oil and gas — those are figures that are thrown out. Can the minister confirm that those are derived in the same way?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes.

B. Ralston: Given that it's a difference between the two taxes paid, as I understand it — perhaps the minister could explain it, or maybe I didn't follow it totally — does that include the calculation of the input tax credits that these economic sectors would receive or not?

[1640]

Hon. C. Hansen: It does take into consideration all of the input tax credits. These numbers are based on the full implementation of the HST, so it would not take into consideration the temporary denial of input tax credits for large corporations.

B. Ralston: Was there any industry input into these numbers? I've been led to believe that there was. Can the minister confirm that or not?

Hon. C. Hansen: The only industry input would be at the time that Stats Canada does their initial studies. These calculations were done based on Stats Canada data, and there was not industry involvement other than the Conference Board of Canada, which helped with some of the calculations.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise if the corollary calculation was made on certain sectors of the economy, say, such as the restaurant industry? Certainly, their perception is — and we'll deal with that perhaps a little bit later, if we have time — that the implementation of an HST will have a dramatic and negative impact on their sector.

I take it these 2004 statistics are the most recent. I'm wondering if the same calculation was made for industries where the comparison may not be so favourable for the government.

Hon. C. Hansen: Every sector actually has a benefit. As embedded PST costs come out, they come out for
[ Page 2697 ]
every business, whether that business is a small restaurant or whether that business is a large pulp mill in the province.

Yeah, it's certainly arguable that a small restaurant wouldn't have the same embedded PST costs as perhaps another sector would have. Nonetheless, those embedded costs are there, and the restaurant sector will get the benefit of those embedded PST costs coming out, just like every other sector does.

B. Ralston: I'm not sure I understood the minister correctly. Is the minister saying that calculations were done for every sector of the economy? They're all net positive, I gather from what he's saying. If so, would the minister be willing to provide those calculations?

Hon. C. Hansen: There is data that separates out the restaurant and accommodation sector, so technically, that calculation could be done, but it is fair to say that the restaurant and accommodation sector will actually see their costs come down.

[1645]

Now, you can argue that the consumer, at the end of the day, is going to wind up paying more under an HST system if they're dining at a restaurant, for example. That actually has a bunch of variables that come into it. But if you look at the base costs of doing business for a restaurant, their basic costs in fact get the same benefit of embedded PST that comes out, just like everybody else.

The only sectors that that actually would not apply to are a small portion of the economy, and it would be those sectors that are currently GST-exempt and as a result of that exemption do not get the benefit of the input tax credits.

B. Ralston: I'm concluding from the minister's comments that that calculation was not done for this sector but could be done if the government chose to do it and provide it.

I'm sure the minister has met with the Restaurant and Foodservices Association. Indeed, he referred to that earlier. I'm sure he's also seen their presentation. In a number of slides they set out what their anticipated drop in revenue is. This is a fairly detailed presentation. They attribute B.C.'s good performance on per-capita expenditure and food services to the fact that the province does not apply PST to restaurant meals.

They say in their submission that the problem with the HST is that it isn't neutral. It reduces disposable income. It distorts the marketplace, especially for food service. It's bad for tourism. It's regressive. They are, as the minister is no doubt strongly aware….

They also refer back to 1991 when the GST was introduced. Canada's food service industry suffered a decline of 10.6 percent in real sales, 7.3 percent of which was attributed to the GST.

They are strongly opposed to that. I know the minister has met with them. They project, based on the submission that they provided to me and to the minister and to others, a year 1 loss of nearly $750 million in sales.

Can the minister explain why the HST is a good thing for this industry, given the documented case that they make and the arguments that they put forward, and explain why they should accept the conclusion that he's put forward that this, in the long run, is going to be good for them — they just don't seem to understand it at the present time?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think this actually goes back to the start of our discussions two hours ago that the HST, according to most of the leading economists in Canada, is the single biggest thing that the province can do to stimulate the economy and create jobs in British Columbia.

If you look at the ups and downs of the restaurant industry in British Columbia, it in fact does well in the years that the economy does well and people are employed. When people are unemployed…. Even though we haven't seen the unemployment rates reach the levels we saw ten years ago, they are certainly higher today than they were two years ago. People that are unemployed don't tend to dine out as much at restaurants.

The more that we can do stimulate the economy, create jobs, make sure people are working, it will provide the disposable income that people can use to enjoy the occasional restaurant meal out.

B. Ralston: The minister refers to one aspect of the restaurant industry, but they rightly identify themselves as one of the largest employers in B.C. — 173,200 jobs; 7.5 percent of B.C.'s workforce; 22 percent of B.C.'s youth employment.

Does the minister not accept their study and their widespread canvass of their members that the introduction of the HST is going to damage jobs in the sector, that people will be laid off or work on reduced hours as the $750 million reduction they anticipate in sales works its way through the system?

It's not simply a question of if other people are employed, they'll come to the restaurant industry. It's a question of the impact they see on the huge employment base that they offer as part of the B.C. economy.

[1650]

Hon. C. Hansen: The year the association points to in terms of the job impact and the sales impact on the restaurant industry in British Columbia of 1991, you know, was also the last year that we had a significant economic recession in British Columbia. That was the year that we saw the real GDP growth rate go down to
[ Page 2698 ]
0.2 percent. We saw the unemployment rate in 1991 go up to 9.9 percent. We saw retail sales that year decline by 2.4 percent.

That was actually a year of economic slowdown, which I think reinforces what I have said earlier — that the ups and downs of the restaurant industry are driven by the economic health of the province. Quite frankly, if you want to look at probably one of the biggest downturns in the success of the restaurant industry, it's been this last 12 months when we've been going through another serious economic recession — this one obviously on a global scale, and one that has impacted them very profoundly.

I think when you look back at the data from 1991, you've got to look at what would be the effect of the economic recession that we were facing at the time versus what would be the effect of the implementation of the GST.

B. Ralston: I'm sure the minister doesn't intend this, but it seems as though he's completely dismissing the concerns of the restaurant industry out of hand in saying that their fears are misplaced, that their detailed study, their own knowledge of their industry, their canvass of their members, their discussion with their customers all seem to be completely misplaced, and they are essentially wrong in their apprehensions.

Is that the message that the minister is communicating to the restaurant industry, that they're just plain wrong and industry leaders are plain wrong? Their members are wrong. Their employees are wrong. Their customers are wrong, and there's really nothing to worry about.

Hon. C. Hansen: I have never said that, never would say that. I have had numerous meetings with the two major restaurant associations, as have the staff in the ministry, and we have taken their issues very seriously. We have invited them to come forward with suggestions of things that might mitigate some of the impacts on the restaurant industry, and we will analyze and look at those very seriously as we go forward.

What I am saying is that we need to be careful in throwing around stats and data that may have other factors at play. If you look at what the leading economists are telling us, it's that British Columbia is going to lead economic growth in Canada next year, that the economic growth that we will see for 2010 and the years beyond will put British Columbia ahead of the rest of Canada in terms of economic growth. That, in turn, is good news for any of the service sectors that might be affected by the HST.

B. Ralston: The minister mentions that he's in discussion. He's talking about possible mitigation. As I understand the dynamic and the financial circumstance of the proposed HST, the room for exemptions is closed. In other words, they've all been allocated.

[1655]

Is the minister discussing with the restaurant industry? I appreciate that he may not want to betray confidences from sensitive negotiations, but can the minister give an indication of whether, in general terms, the options open to his ministry and himself in terms of policy direction are further rebates, rather than exemptions?

Hon. C. Hansen: We're looking at a range of options. It is simply not an option for us to exempt the restaurant industry from the HST. It simply could not fit within the 5 percent parameters that have been set out by the federal government, but we've looked at other measures. We've invited them to come forward with suggestions.

Just to correct one term the member used, it's not a negotiation. We are simply inviting them to come forward with proposals, and we will give all of those suggestions serious consideration.

B. Ralston: I believe the minister said in a recent interview that a number of sectors and industries have lined up at his door and that he is entertaining suggestions for other…. I appreciate if the word "negotiation" is not the right one. Let's say discussions — that's perhaps more neutral — with other sectors of the economy. Is he considering, in the range of options, other rebates to other sectors of the economy and their representatives who may be lined up, so to speak, at his office door?

Hon. C. Hansen: I've had numerous meetings with different organizations and associations that represent various sectors of the economy. It's actually interesting. In some of those discussions that start out with an industry that thinks they're going to be negatively impacted by the HST, by the end of the discussion, they actually realize that they're one of the beneficiaries. It has made for some interesting discussions.

We will obviously, as we have done for the last eight years, find ways to encourage the private sector. We have, for example, brought the small business tax rate down to 2.5 percent, which is a 40 percent reduction in the small business tax rate. We've increased the threshold for small business taxes now to $500,000 starting next year, and we've also indicated that we will further reduce the small business tax rate down to zero by 2012.

Those are all initiatives that we know have helped create a dynamic business community in British Columbia and helped support the job creators. We will continue to find ways that we can work constructively with the business community to make sure that they can continue to create jobs in British Columbia.

B. Ralston: In their submission to the public and to the minister, the restaurant and food service industry does make some comments about what they call the GST, and I think they mean this equally to the HST. They say this. "The GST is regressive because it taxes con-
[ Page 2699 ]
sumption, and lower-income consumers spend a much higher proportion of their incomes on goods and services. In terms of individual taxpayers, upper-income earners tend to benefit the most because their savings and investments escape the GST" — the tax. They quote from a study by the province of Saskatchewan, Finance, "The distributional consequences of harmonization," to support that.

Does the minister agree with the general proposition that because lower-income consumers spend a higher proportion of their incomes on goods and services, the tax is regressive?

Hon. C. Hansen: No, and that's because of the measures that we've brought in: first of all, the low-income tax credit for 1.1 million British Columbians; and also the increase in the basic personal exemption to $11,000, which is actually probably one of the most progressive tax changes because it actually has the same dollar value benefit for a low-income earner who is paying provincial tax as compared to a high-income earner who is paying provincial income tax.

[1700]

B. Ralston: The minister has spoken about the decision to bring in the HST, and he said that one of the factors — and the deciding factor in some interviews; it depends on the interview or the emphasis that's given to it — was what took place in Ontario. Will the minister acknowledge that the Ontario Premier confirmed publicly on January 23, 2009, that he was considering moving to the HST?

On March 10, 2009, the Ontario government signed a memorandum of understanding with the federal government. On March 26, 2009, the Ontario budget was released, and the Premier of Ontario officially announced his intention to bring in the HST. Does the minister agree that that's the timetable of the public discussion in Ontario, the factor that he says was so important in his decision to publicly announce the HST — well after the election, of course — on July 23?

Hon. C. Hansen: I have subsequently gone back and looked at some of the material on line. I think that the member's timeline is right, that they did start discussions and contemplation back in January. The first I was aware that Ontario was considering a harmonized sales tax was when their budget was tabled at the end of March.

B. Ralston: Given the significance of Ontario and Ontario's adopting this, what discussions began after the Ontario budget, internally with the minister's officials, in order to assess the impact of that on British Columbia? Can the minister set out, in whatever detail is possible, the nature of those discussions?

Hon. C. Hansen: I was not party to any discussions with ministry officials about the HST after the Ontario announcement and prior to the middle of May.

B. Ralston: Well, forgive me, and I understand that the minister, as an hon. member, is bound by that code, certainly here in the chamber. But it does seem to run against commonsense expectations, I suppose, that given the importance of this decision by Ontario, nothing was done until after the election. I can appreciate that there may be some rearview-mirror thinking at this point, but it does seem to defy, I suppose, expectations that people might have of how that would proceed.

Is the minister saying that he did absolutely nothing to follow up as the minister after the decision was announced — at least publicly — in the budget of the Ontario government on March 26, 2009?

Hon. C. Hansen: That's correct. At the time we were dealing with the financial year-end, and that was coming up on March 31. We had a lot of work to do preparing for year-end, and the other thing that was obviously looming on the horizon was the writ for the provincial election. So the short answer is no. I did not give the ministry instructions, nor did I seek advice from the ministry on anything to do with the harmonized sales tax during that period of time.

B. Ralston: Now, I've chosen the date of the budget, but obviously, the discussion that was initiated publicly in Ontario began in January, and it was January 23, 2009, when the Ontario Premier, Mr. McGuinty, publicly confirmed that he was considering moving to the HST. So does the minister…? I just want to be clear, then, because I don't think it's…. It wouldn't be accurate to confine….

I understand that at the end of March the minister is concerned with year-end, but this is a discussion that was bubbling in public policy circles — and, I'm sure, among Ministries of Finance — after this fairly momentous decision by Ontario to begin publicly considering the HST.

[1705]

Is the minister saying that from January, when Mr. McGuinty first publicly said that, until the end of May, after the election, that he took no steps to begin to analyze or formulate a position on behalf of the British Columbia government?

Hon. C. Hansen: Over the years that HST has been encouraged in Canada, the province of British Columbia — certainly in this government — has looked at it in advance of every budget. It's certainly one of the subjects that comes up, and the decision was made that we would not pursue the harmonized sales tax for a variety of reasons which we've discussed publicly.
[ Page 2700 ]

As I've mentioned to the member, I was not aware of the consultation process that the Ontario government had initiated. It's actually interesting. I've gone back and done a search of all of the B.C. news media outlets, and there's absolutely no reference in any British Columbia news media of that consultation process. Quite frankly, I'm not a regular reader of the Toronto Star, and I don't intend to become one. In terms of the British Columbia media that I read on a regular basis and watch and listen to, there was absolutely no discussion of that consultation.

As far as the ministry officials were concerned, they knew that the position we as a government had taken when we had previously been encouraged to look at HST was that we were not going to go down that road. That was the policy decision that stood until such time as we reopened that consideration in the middle of May.

The Chair: Member, perhaps before I recognize you, just sort of a general reminder. It appears, from this perspective, that…. I'm having a little trouble as a Chair relating this conversation on policy to the relevance of the vote at hand, so maybe you could help me here.

B. Ralston: Well, I'm endeavouring to comply with Standing Order 61, the rule that governs discussion in estimates, as I understand it. Looking at the report by the learned Clerk, Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, the administrative action of a department is open to debate.

There are discussions that took place leading to the formulation of a policy with a dramatic impact on the tax structure and the revenue of the government. These are all questions designed to discover what ministry resources were expended in pursuing this policy alternative and when that took place.

With respect, I certainly agree with your general direction, but that's what I'm endeavouring to do, and I hope I've confined my remarks to the boundaries of Standing Order 61.

The Chair: Thanks.

B. Ralston: If I might continue.

The Chair: Member, yeah. Carry on.

B. Ralston: Just to briefly close on this topic. On March 30, 2009, federal Finance Minister Flaherty confirmed that other provinces had approached him about the HST. In a story filed by Mr. David Akin, Saskatchewan and Manitoba and P.E.I. confirmed that they were not interested, leaving only British Columbia, because those are the provinces without an HST. In the story it was said that the B.C. Minister of Finance — the name of the Minister of Finance is mentioned, but obviously, according to the rules, I won't mention it here — declined to comment on the issue.

This was an issue that was canvassed in question period, as the minister may recall. Can the minister confirm that that is accurate?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm not sure what he's referring to in terms of what is accurate or not accurate.

The article. I have no idea what the federal Finance Minister may have been referring to or what provinces he may have been referring to, but certainly, he had no basis upon which to make that comment with regard to British Columbia because British Columbia had not had any discussions with the federal government with regard to HST.

With regard to that particular interview, the only reason that the reporter had the basis upon which to say that I declined comment was because he was not able to reach me and I was not in a position to be able to return his telephone call to undertake the interview. If we had made contact and he had asked me the question as to whether or not we were in discussion with the federal government with regard to harmonized sales tax, the answer that he would have got from me at the time was an unequivocal no.

[1710]

B. Ralston: Then, to conclude on this topic, what the minister is saying — and I just want to make sure I have it right — is that from the date of the early discussion of HST, the public discussion by the minister and the Premier of Ontario in January 2009, until after the election — and I believe he refers to a conversation with the Finance Minister at the end of May — there was no discussion either by the minister or his officials of the implementation of an HST. Is that the minister's position then?

Hon. C. Hansen: That is correct.

B. Ralston: And the minister then initiated that discussion post-election — so beginning in this fiscal year in May, at the end of May 2009. Is that the minister's position?

Hon. C. Hansen: The very first indication that anyone in the federal government would have had that British Columbia was reconsidering its previous opposition to the HST was a comment I made to the federal Finance Minister during a break in the deliberations of the Finance Ministers' meeting that was held in Meech Lake at the end of May. It was only subsequent to that that there were discussions that commenced at the officials level.
[ Page 2701 ]

B. Ralston: I understand that the minister has made his position very clear — no discussion with any of his officials, no public comment, no decision taken between January and May. Was there any discussion at any point with the Premier about Ontario and its implementation of the HST, the investment climate and the reasons why British Columbia might want to reconsider its position?

Hon. C. Hansen: No.

B. Ralston: And by discussion, I mean personal contact, face-to-face, or any exchange of memos at the deputy minister level or through the e-mail network or anything. There's simply no discussion at any level between the Minister of Finance, his officials and the Premier and his office and his officials about the HST between January, when it was first raised publicly in Ontario, and the end of May. Is that the minister's position?

Hon. C. Hansen: That is correct.

B. Ralston: I want to now move to another area of…. Just before I close on this topic, there's one area that I omitted to deal with in the agreement, and that's the provisions in the agreement for ending it. I just wanted to deal with the notice provision, and I want the minister to explain how that might work.

I believe that on page 4 in the English language version there's a term to the agreement. "Subject to the termination provisions to be negotiated…British Columbia remains a party to the Canada-British Columbia CITCA for a period of at least five years following implementation of the BCVAT."

Can the minister explain why that term is in there, and is there a similar clause in the Ontario agreement?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I understand it, the federal government was looking for a serious commitment from provinces as they make this decision to transition to the harmonized sales tax, and they wanted to ensure that in agreements there was the term of five years before that could be reviewed. It's the same, as I understand it, in the Ontario agreement.

B. Ralston: The subsequent clause talks about the manner by which the agreement may be amended or terminated. Can the minister explain that particular clause?

There's an indemnification agreement. In other words, if British Columbia were to give notice to leave prior to the conclusion of the five years, as I understand reading the agreement, the British Columbia government would have to pay back the $1.6 billion transitional assistance payment.

[1715]

There's also a notice provision of 90 days and a following provision that if British Columbia didn't pay that amount, that could be offset against other federal-provincial transfers between the province and the government of Canada.

Is that a fair interpretation? Perhaps the minister can make sure that I've got it right.

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is essentially correct. I think, as it's worded, that there is an indemnity that would be paid to the federal government that would be equal to the amount they had compensated us for the transition fund. I gather there were some accounting, technical and legalistic reasons why that terminology is used, but essentially, the member is correct in what he has put forward.

B. Ralston: In terms of the offsetting provisions, that could be construed as being fairly similar to the deal that was struck on some part of the Olympic security costs — in other words, there was an offset against future infrastructure money that was to flow from Ottawa to Victoria. Would that be a fair analogy or not?

Hon. C. Hansen: No, I don't think that would be an analogy, because that was structured quite differently. This language, as I understand it, is pretty much standard language that gets written into agreements of this particular nature.

B. Ralston: If I might just pursue that further.

The way that the clause reads is if British Columbia gives a 90-day notice…. It says: "If British Columbia does not pay the indemnity within 90 days…British Columbia agrees that Canada may set off the amount of the indemnity from any other payment that Canada may owe to British Columbia pursuant to any other agreement or pursuant to an act of parliament."

So it could be offset against any of the regular federal-provincial transfers that Ottawa…. There are a number in the budget, as the minister is aware. In many cases in recent years the provincial budget has been composed of up to almost 20 percent of federal transfers.

Is that what that clause means in practical terms — that it could be offset against any of the flows that are statutorily or otherwise coming to British Columbia in the ordinary course of federal-provincial relations?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes.

B. Ralston: I'm wondering if we might take a brief break. I want to switch to a new topic, and I'd appreciate the opportunity to take a break to reorganize the papers on my desk.

The Chair: Yes. With the committee's acquiescence, I'm happy to have a five-minute break. Would that be sufficient?
[ Page 2702 ]

This committee stands recessed for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:19 p.m. to 5:25 p.m.

[J. McIntyre in the chair.]

The Chair: Again, a reminder, if we could just keep our debate focused. Please make sure that some of the comments and the back-and-forth are focused on the vote. Thank you.

B. Ralston: I want to raise a couple of shorter topics at this point. The first is the commitment…. The minister will recall that since, at the very least, October of last year, but particularly in the budget set forward in February and the budget update on September 1, 2009, the minister and other members of the government have spoken about cutting the costs of government.

One of the commitments made was to cut the senior executive ranks by 20 percent. That was a commitment made by the Premier. Obviously, that has some cost consequences in this budget year. I presume that there's some analysis, in preparing a budget, of the impact of that commitment on the budget by the Ministry of Finance.

Can the minister, first of all, state whether he's aware of that commitment by the Premier? Secondly, can the minister explain what progress has been made, if any, to achieving that 20 percent reduction of senior executives in government?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm certainly aware that commitment was made. I know that process was driven by the head of the public service and had implications, obviously, for this ministry, because the executive ranks within the Ministry of Finance were also affected.

B. Ralston: Obviously, the cost consequences for the budget were analyzed and factored in. Can the minister tell me or tell the House whether the goal of the 20 percent reduction was achieved? I understand that it applies only to deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers and not anyone below that rank. So a 20 percent reduction in the number of deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers…. I don't include, of course, any of the staff who are assisting here. I can't imagine that we could do without them to answer these questions.

Can the minister explain what progress has been made towards that goal in terms of specific numbers and whether that goal has been achieved? If so, what are the cost consequences?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm probably not the person that's able to provide that information. I can certainly speak on behalf of the Ministry of Finance itself, where we had a reduction of three assistant deputy ministers, one deputy minister and also one associate deputy minister. That's how it affected this particular ministry.

I think that the question that the member has would have to be addressed to the head of the public service.

[1730]

The Chair: So yes, Member, you can continue on, as it affects this particular ministry in Vote 29.

B. Ralston: Can the minister, then, say what the cost consequence is in the Ministry of Finance's budget for assistant deputy ministers leaving the ministry?

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Hon. C. Hansen: I don't have a hard-and-fast number at my fingertips here, but roughly, the saving from the reduction of those five positions is probably in the neighbourhood of about $1.1 million to $1.2 million a year.

B. Ralston: Mr. Chair, welcome to the chair. Can the minister say if any of the assistant deputy ministers who left are now employed as assistant deputy ministers or deputy ministers in other parts of the government of British Columbia?

Hon. C. Hansen: Of the three assistant deputy ministers that he referred to, one retired. The two others are still employed by the province of British Columbia but at levels lower than an assistant deputy minister level.

B. Ralston: So by the person who retired, I take it that the minister is referring to Mr. Trumpy. I take it that that wasn't a reduction, strictly speaking, since he was replaced by your able deputy Mr. Whitmarsh. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: No, I think that the member's question was with regard to the three assistant deputy ministers. Of the three assistant deputy ministers, one had retired. In this ministry there were actually two deputy ministers — one that had been responsible for the Revenue Ministry and the other that had been responsible for the Finance Ministry. Those positions were obviously amalgamated with the departure of Chris Trumpy.

In terms of the three assistant deputy ministers, one retired and two transferred into other positions in the public service that were not at the same level as an assistant deputy minister.

B. Ralston: Thank you, Minister, for that. I apologize. I was momentarily distracted by the material that I was reading. The minister is absolutely correct; I was referring to assistant deputy ministers.

[1735]
[ Page 2703 ]

Then, in pursuit of this policy, since the minister is only able to talk about his own ministry, are there any other positions that are contemplated being reduced in this fiscal year in order to achieve the target that was set out by the chair of the public service?

Hon. C. Hansen: The answer is: not at the executive level. But there are certainly other positions within the ministry that will be eliminated as a result of attrition that we anticipate before the end of this fiscal year.

B. Ralston: Can the minister say if there are any specific staffing reduction targets within his ministry? If so, what are they?

Hon. C. Hansen: In terms of the current fiscal year we're in today, we anticipate that we will end the year with about 88 positions fewer than when we started the year. Those are being achieved primarily — in fact, almost exclusively — through attrition and not layoffs. Next year, again primarily through attrition, we anticipate a further reduction of 64 and the year after, 48.

The budget for the Ministry of Finance this year is 24 percent lower than it was last year. Next year we'll see a further 12 percent reduction, and the year after that we'll see a further 12 percent reduction.

The Chair: Member for Surrey-Whalley.

B. Ralston: Mr. Chair, certainly Surrey-Whalley appreciates that recognition here in the chamber.

Can the minister advise, when one looks at Vote 29 and the ministry operations, where those reductions are going to come from? There are a number of program areas and staffing areas. I'm not interested in line-by-line detail. But broadly speaking, is there any particular section that has been selected to be reduced, or is that simply attrition or retirements over the whole of the ministry staff?

[1740]

Hon. C. Hansen: The biggest single area within the ministry that is affected is in the corporate services sector, so it's very much within sort of the administration services of the ministry. The two areas that would have the second-largest absolute numbers of impact, not percentage impact, would be the revenue programs and also revenue solutions. Those are the three areas of the ministry that had the largest impact in terms of number of positions.

B. Ralston: I'm now going to turn it over to my colleague the member for Stikine, who's the deputy Finance critic, to ask some questions for a period of time prior to adjournment.

D. Donaldson: Thank you to the minister for this opportunity to ask some direct questions as it relates to this budget vote and more specific questions on concerns in the northern part of the province, where I come from.

My first question to the minister is in regards to mining. I questioned the Minister of State for Mining during his ministry's estimates last week, regarding the mine flow-through shares tax credit that was extended by this government to the end of 2010. I asked how much revenue this tax credit was worth last year and how much the government estimated it would be worth this year when they were doing their analysis to come to a decision to extend the program.

The Minister of State for Mining said, "I'm sure the minister would be pleased to provide" myself with that information, at the budget estimates last week. That's why I'm posing the question to you today to give us an idea of how much those tax credits are worth and the analysis that was done on that topic.

Hon. C. Hansen: The cost of extending the flow-through tax credit was $16 million for the year. Now, it does not work independent of other mechanisms. There is also the corporate tax credit.

The flow-through tax credit actually benefits the investor, whereas the exploration tax credit would benefit the company. The two of them actually work hand in hand, so it's difficult to sort of single one out and say that that one measure costs X amount because of the way that the two programs work in tandem with each other.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that answer, Minister. As you know, we're very dependent on resource extraction oftentimes in the communities in the north. We're experiencing some severe rates of unemployment based on the fact that we're overly depending, in my estimate, on resource extraction.

[1745]

In relation to that mining tax credit, is it in the analysis that a geographic element to that tax credit…? In other words, was an analysis done that that tax credit would actually benefit mining in the northern parts of the province more so than other areas? Was that part of the analysis?

Hon. C. Hansen: The flow-through tax credit applies the same to all parts of the province. The north would be the biggest beneficiary of that just because of the amount of mining sector activity taking place in the north. So the majority of that benefit would go to the north, but that's just because of where the activity is located, not anything that would discriminate against one part of the province in favour of another part of the province.

The one exception would be with regard not to the flow-through tax credit but to the exploration tax credit.
[ Page 2704 ]
That's with regard to the extra amount that would be there for the benefit of mountain pine beetle–affected parts of the province.

D. Donaldson: I'd like to move to another mining-related question. The Minister of State for Mining said during his budget estimates that including revenue-sharing on mining projects was one of the strategies that this government is employing in order to address first nations concerns regarding economic development on their traditional territories, and perhaps one of the things it should undertake to fulfil its obligations on court decisions that have been building around aboriginal title.

So my question around that is: what is the mineral tax revenue being shared with first nations right now, and what are the plans in the upcoming budget year for mineral taxation revenues to be shared?

Hon. C. Hansen: There is not currently any revenue-sharing with regard to the mineral tax revenue that comes into the province. There are certainly discussions and deliberations that are being led by the Minister of Aboriginal Relations with regard to future economic activity, but there are not currently any revenue-sharing agreements in place with regard to revenue tax.

D. Donaldson: As I understand it, the revenue-sharing could apply to new mines and the expansion of mining operations. We have, thankfully, some of those just about coming through. In fact, the major mine expansions are almost there. Just to get an idea of the process coming up in the budget here on this vote, does the Minister of Finance advise these discussions around the sharing of mineral tax revenues?

Obviously, the expertise lies within this ministry versus the Aboriginal Relations Ministry. So are you giving advice right now on the style of mineral tax revenue-sharing that should be considered?

Hon. C. Hansen: This would not be an issue that would pertain to this vote or any of the Ministry of Finance votes.

[1750]

These, obviously, are issues that would come before Treasury Board. Treasury Board staff would have to do their analysis and provide advice to Treasury Board, as they do for any issue across the broad spectrum of provincial government operations. But this would not have any direct impact on the ministry vote itself.

D. Donaldson: I take that answer as meaning that no advice has been given to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations on sharing mineral tax revenue strategies as the staff works on it under this vote. I look forward to that happening soon, because these projects are important to northern communities, and the sharing of the revenues is an issue that's going to take some negotiating. So the sooner the better, as far as I'm concerned.

I'll move on to a topic under this vote that has to do with natural gas. The Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources — the minister, actually — announced a significant royalty break recently for natural gas production. I understand that this might be a strategy used by government from time to time as an incentive to companies to explore and develop the resource. Such a decision must take careful analysis of the benefits and the risks related to revenue generation.

Based on the natural gas forecast prices in this budget document this year, can the minister advise us on the careful analysis that was done — specifically, the amount of revenue to be foregone with such a policy as was undertaken?

Hon. C. Hansen: That's the kind of question that would have to be directed to the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. We in the Ministry of Finance actually have responsibility for Treasury Board, and we have Treasury Board analysts who will look at all proposals that come forward to Treasury Board from all ministries and the financial implications for those. We provide advice, and we work with ministries with regard to the proposals that they bring forward.

Basically, if you were to take the member's approach to its logical conclusion, we could discuss everything in government under this vote, because the Ministry of Finance — and Treasury Board obviously — has responsibility for all of the issues that come before Treasury Board, including the budget itself for each ministry.

When it comes to the revenue projections from natural gas, whether it's royalties or land sales, those within the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources have that expertise. They do those calculations. They provide those revenue projections to the Ministry of Finance, and we load those numbers into our budget projections.

D. Donaldson: I believe that forecasting the amount of revenue forgone under public policies is an excellent topic for the Minister of Finance to discuss. I approached this subject matter in budget estimates last week with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and the idea was that I was to come to this budget estimates and ask the minister here.

I'll leave that topic for now and move on to a final one around the Northern Development Trust — NDI, the northern development initiative. I have some questions about the ultimate responsibility for overseeing how this fund is managed. I noted that in the service plan goals for this ministry are financial governance and sound financial accounting.

My question relates to the Northern Development Trust and some of the investment decisions that they've
[ Page 2705 ]
made. The minister might be aware that the chair of the committee and the chair of the finance committee of that trust are government-appointed, so those are influential positions.

The CEO of the trust confirmed to me that the trust, based on the advice of the chair and the board, invested money in the open market — this was in 2008 — and lost tens of millions of dollars compared to the revenue they could have generated by staying with the Municipal Finance Authority.

[1755]

Does the ultimate responsibility for overseeing how the Northern Development Trust manages its funds rest with the minister, if the service plan goal of sound financial governance is part of the ministry?

Hon. C. Hansen: The only reason I have some familiarity with this file is because when I was the Minister of Economic Development, I had responsibility for the relationship between the province of British Columbia and the three development initiative trusts. The three development initiative trusts, including NDI, are outside of the provincial government entity. They obviously have a relationship with the province, and that relationship is managed currently by the Minister of Community Development.

There are a small number of appointees to the board that are designated by the province. It's a minority of the makeup of the board. Those appointments, when they do come up, are managed through the Minister of Community Development.

The NDI is a great organization. The province put $185 million into it, and I know that it's made a big impact on northern British Columbia. But they operate independently, and they make their own decisions without interference from the province of British Columbia.

D. Donaldson: Well, I would point out that six of the appointed members out of a 13-member board is not a small number. There are seven local government members on that board and six appointed officials — appointed by this government — and they hold the chair and the head of the financial committee positions. So it's a pretty significant non-elected representation on the committee.

I agree with the minister that the NDI has done some great work in the north, and I don't dispute that. What I am trying to get down to is who is ultimately responsible for investment decisions they make with the $185 million of what were taxpayers' dollars representing the sale of the assets, I believe, of B.C. Rail. I would say that that's my dollars, your dollars and people in the north's dollars.

So if I understand correctly, and just to clarify with the minister, the oversight for financial investment of the funds, of public funds, rests entirely with the board.

Hon. C. Hansen: I always try not to frustrate these discussions, and I would love to engage with the member on this. But to the extent that NDI relates to the province of British Columbia, it's through the Minister of Community Development. The Ministry of Finance, to come back to our specific vote, does not have any role or responsibility when it comes to the oversight of funds held by the Northern Development Initiative Trust.

B. Ralston: I'm going to change the topic. I note that we have about 15 minutes left, and I'd like to begin a discussion of something that I have given a brief advance notice to the minister on. That is EDS Advanced Solutions and the contract to collect revenue. As I understand it, that falls within Vote 29 on revenue programs and revenue solutions.

As the minister will know, there was a contract, a ten-year deal, signed in November 2004 to collect certain areas of revenue on behalf of the government. Reading from the ministry press release back then: "EDS Advanced Solutions will deliver information technology services to the" then "Ministry of Provincial Revenue and perform billing, remittance and payment processing and non-tax collection functions for several government programs. Government's collection guidelines and procedures will continue to be governed by the ministry."

It was stated that EDS Advanced Solutions will make a significant investment and assume the financial risk associated with developing and implementing new business processes and information systems.

[1800]

Thus far, quoting from Public Accounts, EDS Advanced Solutions has received the following payments from the provincial government for their work: 2004-05, $15.5 million; next fiscal year, $62.5 million; following fiscal year, $79.7 million; following year, $76.4 million; the year after that, $78.2 million.

Given the significant payments…. As the minister will be aware or as his officials would be advised, some of the operation of EDS and its contract were the subject of scrutiny by the Auditor General in a report. There were some difficulties, gaps, pointed out in the contract negotiations which led to EDS potentially reaping a windfall profit from the contract.

Can the minister advise if the initial cost-saving projections are still accurate? They were considerable. I believe the initial release claimed payments of $480 million to EDS and net financial benefits of $380 million to $572 million over the initial ten-year time frame of the deal. In addition, EDS pledged to make a significant investment in British Columbia, including the creation of a centre of excellence.

Just to return to the question, then: is it the view of the minister, on behalf of the ministry and the government, that the cost-saving projections are still real, or do they need to be reconsidered and perhaps restated?
[ Page 2706 ]

Hon. C. Hansen: I am advised that the ministry does follow this and that the net benefits to the province are certainly on track with the original expectations.

B. Ralston: I'm advised that the payments are running roughly double to the base fee amount in the contract. Can the minister explain why?

Hon. C. Hansen: The way that this agreement was set up is that there was a base benefit. That is on target, as was originally envisioned. There was also a share of the gross benefits that would result from this arrangement. That was also anticipated at the time that it was originally negotiated, and that is also on target, coming in at the same numbers that were originally envisioned.

The only difference that's taken place, the only change from what was original, is that there has been a two-year extension negotiated, and that has provided for a very small increment when it comes to that additional share that EAS gets in addition to their base benefits.

[1805]

B. Ralston: Well, I'll try to pursue that further shortly, perhaps tomorrow morning, at least briefly.

In the initial press release there was mention made of a significant investment by EDS. Is the minister able to advise: what was the nature of that significant investment? A centre of excellence was referred to by the president in the release: "This initiative will create a centre of excellence for revenue management in British Columbia." Can the minister advise about that? So the centre of excellence and the "significant investment."

Hon. C. Hansen: I am advised that they have put $200 million into this project to build the revenue management system, and they have established the centre of excellence. It's located, currently, at the Vancouver Island Technology Park.

B. Ralston: I understand that this program administered the property tax hardship deferment program which, as the minister will recall, was announced in late October or early November last year. I'm advised that there's been relatively little uptake on the program. I'm also advised that the government paid EDS approximately $1.5 million to develop the software necessary to support the deferment program and that additional funding may have been required to operate the software.

Can the minister advise, first of all, on the number of applications that were estimated would be received for this program? And then the next would be the actual number of applications. So the estimate and the actual number of applications.

Hon. C. Hansen: We have some of the data and stats with us with regard to the original tax deferment program that pertains to seniors. The temporary two-year tax deferment program for families going through temporary economic hardship…. We do not have those stats with us, but we will certainly endeavour to have them for when we reconvene in the morning.

B. Ralston: I'm not sure, again, if the minister can answer now, but perhaps the staff here could provide these answers. Did the government hire EDS to develop the software program for this tax-related program?

[1810]

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm advised that EDS has developed the software for the seniors program, so that has been in place. EDS has developed the technology for that, and they did undertake to make the adjustments to the software to facilitate the new economic hardship program.

B. Ralston: I anticipate that this will probably be my last series of questions, given that the hour is approaching 6:15, which I know, according to the Chair, is the hour at which we shall adjourn. Perhaps I could simply recite a couple questions, and then we could deal with them in the morning, after we adjourn.

The centre of excellence that's referred to in, I believe, Saanich. Can the minister briefly answer what is done there, in a summary fashion? The investment that was spoken of…. Is that the property of EDS, or is that owned by the government? So that's the first two questions.

Then, just to return to the property tax hardship deferment program. Can the minister advise how many actual applications were received, the dollar amount of the property taxes actually deferred and the software cost to create the program? I'm taking it from the minister's answer that the software program was not put out to tender, but EDS was selected to develop the program based on the ongoing relationship through the contract.

I appreciate that we shall adjourn shortly, so I look forward to answers from the minister and his staff tomorrow morning.

Hon. C. Hansen: We will certainly undertake to get the answers to those queries for ten o'clock tomorrow morning, when we reconvene.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:12 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