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)

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 9, Number 4

[ Page 2731 ]

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2009

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Coell: Joining us today in the gallery is a constituent of mine, Randy Wilson. He is the co-founder and partner of the Liquor Plus stores here on Vancouver Island. Would the House please make him welcome.

Tributes

NELSON LEESON

Hon. G. Campbell: I ask that the members of the House join me today in extending our prayers to the family of Nelson Leeson, who is the president of the Nisga'a Lisims Government. He is very seriously ill.

He has been an extraordinary leader in British Columbia, bridging the gaps between the first nations and non–first nations people. He played an instrumental role in advancing the interests of the Nisga'a nation and transforming the relationship between first nations and citizens all over this province. I would hope that the Legislature will send our best wishes to him and our prayers to him and his family.

C. James: Yes, I would echo the Premier's words. He's an extraordinary leader and has been an extraordinary leader for the Nisga'a government. I pass along our thoughts to the family as well.

Introductions by Members

C. James: I have four guests that I'm pleased to introduce today: Mary Desprez, the general manager of the Belfry Theatre; Maureen Bradley, a film-maker and fine arts professor at the University of Victoria; Bill Cowen, who is the curator for the Boucherat Gallery; and Lydia Kasianchuk, who is a board member from the Metchosin International Summer School of the Arts. They're all here to show their support for investments and funding for arts and culture. Would the House please make them very welcome.

D. Black: We have a number of midwifery students from UBC who are with us today in the gallery. I would like to introduce them.

Paula Hartley is the UBC midwifery student government president; Ilana Stanger-Ross, fourth-year student; Laura Willinhganz is a fourth-year student; Lauren McHattie, third year; Liz Morrison, first year; Ashley Porter, second year; Alix Bacon, second-year student; Lyanne Quirt, second-year student; Elisha Manson, a second-year student; and Deb Little is a registered midwife. I would ask the House to make them welcome today.

I also have two other people to introduce, and they are from the UBC Alma Mater Society. Adrienne Smith is the policy adviser for the UBC Alma Mater Society, and Tim Chu is the president. I ask the House to make them welcome, please.

[1335]

Hon. K. Falcon: Joining us in the House today is Susan Knott, who is a board member for the Canadian Society of Intestinal Research. Joining Susan is Gail Attara, the executive director for the CSIR. As November is Inflammatory Bowel Disease Awareness Month, they are in Victoria raising awareness about two diseases — Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. I would ask the House to please make them both welcome.

L. Popham: I rise in the House today to introduce Joey MacDonald, the art director at the University of Victoria Students Society. He's here with a group from ProArt Alliance. My two good friends Doug Much and Fiona Percy are also here. They're from the fine community of Willis Point, which is in Saanich South.

H. Lali: I have the pleasure of introducing to the House three very energetic women from the community of Savona. They are here to support public education. Having known them, when they latch onto something, they don't let go. They see to the finish.

They'll also be meeting with some of the ministers and MLAs on both sides of the House. So when they meet with the ministers, all they have to say is yes, in terms of their demands.

They are from the Save the Schools committee in Savona. They are members of the PAC there — Adrienne Teague, Julie Reimer and Cara McKelvey. Would the House please give them a warm Victoria welcome.

M. Karagianis: I would like to add some welcomes to other members of ProArt that are here today: Lora McIntosh from the Victoria Jazz Society; Kathy Kay, director of the Victoria Film Festival and a constituent of mine; Dwayne Gordon, member from the Victoria Operatic Society; and musician Phil Hallman. Would you please give them a good welcome.

J. Horgan: I, too, have guests in the gallery today. Joining us is Judy Scott, president of the Metchosin International Summer School of the Arts. She's here with the ProArt Alliance and doing good work, talking to legislators about arts funding and other issues.
[ Page 2732 ]

I am also joined by two more citizens from Sooke, good Juan de Fucans, who have come, after purchasing a lunch at the Sooke rotary, to have lunch here at the Legislature and to see the actions and activities here on the floor. I'm certain that all members will be on their best behaviour and give a warm welcome to Allan and Fiona Poole.

B. Routley: I would like the House to welcome Rebecca Johnson. She's a lighting designer who is here today to show her support for reinvesting in arts, culture and heritage in B.C. She's a constituent from the Cowichan Valley. Will the House please join me in making her very welcome.

Hon. I Chong: Visiting in the gallery today is a constituent of mine, Darryl Mar, who is the executive artistic director of the Victoria Jazz Society. Would the House please make him welcome.

R. Fleming: I have a few introductions to make. With us today in the gallery is Heather Wood, who is a constituent of mine. She is a registered midwife currently practicing in my community. As well, Angela Spencer, who is a recently retired midwife. With her is Jamie Traynor, who is an interested member in the midwife clinics in our region.

Also with us today is a school group. Ms. Selena Jensen as well as 32 grade 11 students from Reynolds Secondary School are here. Many of them are here in the Legislature for the first time, even though they live in Victoria. It won't be their last time, so the House must make them feel welcome so they'll come back time and time again.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill M205 — food safety amendment
(Farm gate sales) act, 2009

N. Simons presented a bill intituled Food Safety Amendment (Farm Gate Sales) Act, 2009.

N. Simons: I move this bill be read a first time now.

[1340]

Motion approved.

N. Simons: The Food Safety Amendment (Farm Gate Sales) Act restores the right of farmers to sell the meat they produce to local consumers. Laws and regulations designed to meet international cross-border trade agreements and designed to harmonize the North American food system have threatened the viability of small farms in British Columbia.

Legalizing local and bioregional meat production will help offset the disproportionate amount of greenhouse gas emissions which result from global meat production. Local and bioregional meat production will provide local, quality food; stimulate local economies; and strengthen the safety of our food systems.

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

Bill M205, Food Safety Amendment (Farm Gate Sales) Act, 2009, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

TRISH CHUNG AND
FOOD SECURITY INITIATIVES

B. Ralston: A few weeks ago I attended a community meeting and dinner in the village of 100 Mile House. The people at the Horse Lake Community Farm co-op catered the dinner, and I must say I was very impressed with the event. All of the foods and beverages, with few exceptions, were grown or produced within a hundred miles of 100 Mile, and that's obviously appropriate. While I enjoyed the dinner and the company, that's not why I have risen today.

One of the many hard-working people involved in the dinner was Trish Chung. Miss Chung lives at 57 Mile House and is well known in the Cariboo. She is the food security coordinator and pregnancy support worker for the Cariboo Family Enrichment Centre. She led the work to develop the community garden and the community kitchen, where she teaches interested people how to choose and prepare foods, particularly locally produced foods.

Miss Chung also organized the Good Food Box program that provides and subsidizes the cost of fresh produce for families with young children. She has also offered cooking classes and cooks' training at the youth centre in Dog Creek. In addition, Miss Chung volunteers as a board member for the Horse Lake Community Farm co-op and sits on the board of the B.C. Food Systems Network that promotes food security initiatives.

While I am delighted to recognize Miss Chung in the House today, she's also been recognized by another group: the Vancouver-based Minerva Foundation. This foundation advocates for empowering women and building stronger communities. Miss Chung has been chosen as one of the three women in British Columbia to receive an award for community leadership and excellence at a special dinner in Vancouver in December.

I ask the House to join with me today to recognize Trish Chung for this esteemed award and to acknowledge her contributions to her community.
[ Page 2733 ]

FLOOD PREVENTION IN FRASER VALLEY

J. Les: Over the last several weeks we have been watching with considerable interest as the snow has accumulated on our hills and mountains. This obviously bodes well for ski enthusiasts, but it has some of my constituents thinking ahead to next spring when all of this snow will melt and possibly cause high water and potential flooding on the Fraser.

In the Fraser Valley we have always been acutely aware of the need to ensure that we maintain our dikes and manage the river to ensure that we're protected from flooding and excessive seepage. My constituents were pleased recently when $5 million of infrastructure funding was provided to further improve the dikes in the Chilliwack area. However, dike improvement and maintenance alone are not enough. The river itself needs to be managed.

Every year, on average, about 50,000 truckloads of gravel washes into the Chilliwack reach of the river. Left unaddressed, this inevitably raises the elevation of the river bottom, compromising the dikes and leading to more seepage of surrounding farmlands. In fact, in the Agassiz area, several farmers already have great difficulty farming their land because of this additional seepage, as a result of the elevation of the river bottom already having risen considerably.

Happily, over the last five years, working closely with first nations, engineers, river hydrologists and environmental consultants, an organized and thoughtful gravel removal program has been put in place. On average, 230,000 tonnes of gravel have been removed each year. This does not lessen the gravel accumulation to date, but it certainly helps to keep the seepage and other problems from worsening. Markets for this gravel are not great, but it is slowly being sold into the marketplace.

These gravel removals are done with close environmental monitoring before, during and after work being done. Essentially, no work is being done in the water. Great care is taken to not affect fish habitat adversely. While the Fraser is home to all of the salmon species, only pink salmon spawn in this area, and I'm happy to report that this summer the river was literally teeming with spawning pink salmon.

My constituents are pleased with the work being done to keep their community safe, and I look forward to it continuing in the years ahead.

[1345]

GUIDE-OUTFITTERS IN
NORTHWESTERN B.C.

D. Donaldson: In Stikine we love being out on the land, and we enjoy it in many ways: for recreational purposes, for spiritual purposes and for economic reasons, to name a few — sometimes all at the same time.

For many, it is love of the land that keeps us in Stikine, and then people find ways to support themselves. Some would call it a lifestyle, but it's deeper than that because it involves stewardship and connection to the natural world.

That is why I am very happy to highlight today the Northwest Guide Outfitters Association and their annual general meeting taking place in Smithers this weekend, November 27 and 28.

Make no mistake. Guide-outfitting is an important business in B.C. It generates in the range of $116 million per year, with more than 5,000 hunters visiting our province, leading to thousands of direct local jobs.

It is also a way of life that people are passionate about — a remote, rural way of life. As one guide said to me: "It isn't something you get into to get rich, but it's a good way of living." What it does in Stikine, though, is provide another opportunity for people to make a living in a sustainable manner off the land base and to provide a means for younger people to stay in the area and make money as assistant guides.

Those in the guide-outfitting business are on the ground on a daily basis. They know the health of an ecosystem intimately and their dependence on it. A guiding friend of mine said: "It's a big industry, but any guide knows that if you kill all the animals, you won't have a job."

I know many participating in this sector and the positive contribution they make to educating those from faraway urban centres, often, about the role we all play by being part of the natural world, not apart from it. A guide told me recently about the thrill he got when a hunter client who didn't get an animal phoned him after getting back home to chat about the good time he had and how he will be back again.

That is the nature of this sector and rural areas of the province. I wish the Northwest Guides AGM organizer Michael Young a successful weekend and a good fundraiser on Saturday night.

YOUTH SPORTS ACTIVITIES AND
SCHOOL SPORTS INFRASTRUCTURE

J. Thornthwaite: Education, sport and physical fitness are closely intertwined. In my riding we see this daily, demonstrated on the field of Windsor Secondary School in North Vancouver.

This is why I was so excited to attend an event on November 10 celebrating an over-$3.2-million investment for a new artificial turf and track at Windsor Secondary. This is especially significant for me personally. My son graduated in 2008, my daughter will graduate next year, and my little one will graduate in 2016 from Windsor Secondary. I was part of the PAC for several years as well.

Participation in sport and physical activity is valued and embraced as a way of life in British Columbia.
[ Page 2734 ]
According to Stats Canada, children who participate in organized activities outside of school such as sports, music or clubs tend to have a higher self-esteem, interact better with friends and perform better in school. As well, physical inactivity is a risk factor for many conditions including heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, osteoporosis and some cancers.

As a former dietitian, I know that children especially need physical activity and healthy eating habits for healthy growth and development, and I believe that this has motivated the partnership between the federal, provincial and municipal governments, school boards and industry, the rec commission and sports groups to work together to see this substantial investment take place.

With investments like this, we can continue British Columbia's longstanding tradition of sports excellence, and we can continue to be Canada's most physically active province. Investments like this are not just an investment as a facility for soccer, football, rugby or field hockey, but it's an investment in the future of our children's health.

NEW WESTMINSTER POLICE DEPARTMENT

D. Black: I am pleased to speak about the New Westminster police department, who have a long and proud tradition in my community. A lot has happened since the department was founded in 1873, and New Westminster police continue to serve our residents with integrity and professionalism.

The department is noted for its strong community policing initiatives and for programs such as a domestic violence response team, which has served as a template for similar programs through our province and, indeed, through other parts of Canada. The New Westminster police department also has strong victim assistance services and works closely with individuals and businesses through its community policing programs.

One member of the department who is noted for his community involvement was honoured recently with the Award of Meritorious Service at a ceremony at Government House. Const. Bruce Ballingall has been a street and community police officer for over 30 years. The primary focus of his career has been community policing, although he has also worked in school liaison, patrol and drug squads.

[1350]

While Constable Ballingall has received a number of awards over the years, he continues to give credit back to the volunteers within the city who work on many of the programs which he oversees.

Sir Robert Peel, the founder of modern policing, said: "The police are the public, and the public are the police — the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen, in the interests of community welfare and existence."

I'm pleased that Constable Ballingall's dedicated community service has been recognized with such an important award. I join the residents of New Westminster in thanking all members of our police department who work closely with the public every day to protect our community.

WORLD AIDS DAY

R. Howard: World AIDS Day, established by the World Health Organization in 1988, is observed on December 1 every year. This event provides governments, national AIDS programs, faith groups, community organizations and individuals with a valuable opportunity to raise awareness of the global AIDS epidemic.

According to the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, approximately 11,000 British Columbians are HIV-infected, with close to 450 new cases reported each year. As well, more than 3,200 cases of AIDS have been reported in the province, a third of whom currently live with the disease.

This year the theme of World AIDS Day is "Universal access to human rights." I'm proud to say that in British Columbia we meet this ideal. Our commitment to reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS comes from a recognition that prevention, treatment and care are fundamental human rights. This is why we're working to ensure that British Columbians living with HIV/AIDS receive access to the very best treatment and support available.

A local organization involved in the fight against HIV/AIDS is the Heart of Richmond AIDS Society. They are active in providing support to those in Richmond living with HIV/AIDS and also do great work in raising awareness. Their education program for high school students is just one of their initiatives to raise awareness.

On December 1, I encourage everyone to take some time to become informed about HIV/AIDS, to remember those we have lost and to make a donation to a group such as the Heart of Richmond AIDS Society.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON CHILD POVERTY

C. James: Today we learned that for the sixth year in a row B.C. has the worst child poverty rate in all of Canada — six years in a row. It's a shameful statistic, and it's an issue that demands the government's attention now.

My question is to the Premier. Will he commit today to implement a poverty reduction strategy to help those children and families?

Hon. M. Polak: I know that the issue of child poverty is one that each and every one of us in this House takes very seriously. On our side of the House we've been
[ Page 2735 ]
working continuously to see these numbers decline. In fact, I am pleased that we've seen these numbers decline to the extent that now we have the lowest child poverty rate in British Columbia in almost 20 years.

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

C. James: I'd like to remind the minister and every member of government that these are not statistics; these are children — 156,000 children — living in poverty for six years in a row. I'm certain the minister's words are cold comfort to those children. The children don't live alone in poverty. These are families living in poverty.

Again, my question is to the Premier. Nearly one in five children lives in poverty in British Columbia. When will the Premier put forward a plan to help them?

Hon. M. Polak: Again, our government takes the issue of child poverty very seriously. I would remind the member that six years in a row we have seen the number of children living in poverty in British Columbia decline. In fact, in this last year of the report we have seen the number of children living in poverty decline by 25,000.

[1355]

Those children that the member speaks of need a real plan that involves things like rental assistance, things like child care subsidy, things like eliminating the MSP premiums for their parents, eliminating income tax — things that put hard dollars back into the pockets of those low-income earners so that they have the empowerment to rise to their greatest opportunity. That's what we're doing in British Columbia.

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

C. James: Child poverty is a critical issue facing British Columbia. The minister can play all the numbers games she wants. But six years in a row, the worst child poverty rate in this country here in British Columbia is a shameful statistic.

It's not simply the opposition raising this issue. In the words of the Premier's own Progress Board: "All children, irrespective of their social background, should have an equal chance to succeed in the province." That quote came from 2006, shortly after British Columbia was named number one in child poverty for the third straight year in a row.

It's been six years. Report after report after report has come forward. Children and families living in poverty, and this Premier has failed to meet his own Progress Board standards. Again I ask the Premier: how many more years will it take before we finally see a commitment to address children living in poverty in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Polak: Our commitment is to go far beyond child poverty and address childhood vulnerabilities in every area. That's why our plan includes things like rental assistance. That's why our plan includes the child care subsidy. That's why our plan includes eliminating the MSP premiums. That's why our plan this year alone provides $450 million in housing supports. None of that is considered in the current report by First Call.

M. Karagianis: Well, the government is just not credible on this topic. In the words of Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the Representative for Children and Youth in British Columbia: "I think the alarm bells have been ringing, and they're ringing very loudly. Not only do we have a large number of children living in poverty, but what we have to help them is not enough." Not my words; the words of an independent officer of the Legislature.

My question is to the Premier. Will he heed the warnings of the children's representative and commit to a poverty reduction strategy?

Hon. M. Polak: It would be interesting for the member to know, I'm sure, that you have to go back to 1991 to find a time in the province of British Columbia when child poverty rates were lower. In fact, the reason for that is because in the 1990s child poverty rose, and I'll quote the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which said: "There was an increase in child poverty by any measure in the 1990s."

This government has worked continuously to see those numbers decline, and we have succeeded. In each and every one of those six years mentioned, the child poverty rate in British Columbia has dropped to what is now the lowest rate in almost 20 years in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: For the sixth year in a row British Columbia has the highest child poverty in the entire country — sixth year in a row. Again I'll go back to the words of the independent Representative for Children and Youth, who says: "B.C. needs a proper child poverty plan with real targets and real measures."

Now, Ontario has done it; Manitoba has done it; Quebec has one; Nova Scotia; New Brunswick just passed one. Even the federal government is getting on board but not British Columbia. How shameful is that?

My question again is to the Premier. When will he follow the lead of the children's representative and other provinces in this country and put together a child poverty reduction plan?

[1400]

Hon. M. Polak: Well, not only do we have the lowest rates of child poverty in B.C. in 20 years, but our child poverty rates have declined at a rate double that of the
[ Page 2736 ]
national average. That is because we've taken a holistic approach, including things like rental assistance, child care subsidy, eliminating MSP premiums and eliminating income tax.

This year alone we will invest more than $1 billion in child care, in early childhood development and in services to special needs students. Those are real, tangible benefits for our most vulnerable in British Columbia, and we will continue to see the child poverty rates decline.

S. Simpson: Poor families are poor kids, and for the 156,000 children in B.C. and their families, this government has done less than anybody else in this country to deal with the issue of poverty.

Mr. Speaker, six provinces have adopted poverty reduction strategies. The B.C. Liberals have said no. Everybody in this country knows that affordable family rental housing is needed to reduce poverty. The B.C. Liberals have said no to building that housing. And 55 percent of the families identified in this report have at least one adult working full time, but the B.C. Liberals have said no to increasing the minimum wage — condemning those families to poverty.

Will the Premier commit today to introducing a poverty reduction strategy with targets and timelines for British Columbia?

Hon. M. Polak: Let's talk about affordable housing, which over the last eight years has seen a more-than-$2-billion investment by this government. I can tell you what we've achieved, even according to the First Call report. From 2003 to 2007, the period covered by this report, we've seen the number of children living in poverty drop by 40,000 across British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: This minister should know that this government has done nothing to build affordable family housing in this province. Hon. Speaker, this minister talks….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

S. Simpson: We hear the prattle from the Housing Minister, who has failed British Columbians time and again.

But let's talk about the statistics that this minister talks about. From 1980 to 2001, British Columbia's poverty rates mirrored the national rate. In 2001 they spiked by 20 percent. They have stayed at that rate since then. That's the B.C. Liberal legacy — 20 percent higher than anyplace else in the country.

The children's representative called on the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition to meet with her and bring forward a bipartisan strategy to deal with poverty. My leader accepted that offer, and the Premier refused.

My question is to the Premier. Will he finally reverse himself, show some leadership, meet with the children's representative and the Leader of the Opposition, and bring forward a policy on poverty that British Columbians can be proud of, instead of ashamed of?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Polak: I know that the members opposite don't like to hear that the plan we have in place is working, but here are the facts. We now have the lowest child poverty rate in British Columbia than we've had in almost 20 years.

[1405]

Mr. Speaker, according to the most recent report produced by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, in the year 2006-2007, the last year they kept statistics for, our child poverty rate fell in that one year by 17 percent.

J. Kwan: B.C. children's representative Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond's response to the poverty report card states: "I think it is really attributable to one thing. We don't have the social policy supports in place to lift those children out of poverty."

My question to the minister and to the Premier is this. Is she wrong, or is it this government that is wrong, and it's time for this government to put forward a coordinated, comprehensive child poverty reduction strategy?

Hon. M. Polak: We have continued year upon year to lift more and more families out of poverty, off of income assistance, into employment. These are real families who want to be able to provide for their needs.

That's why it's so important that in British Columbia we've seen real average disposable income rise to its highest level in 20 years. We've seen the average hourly wage in B.C. rise to a point of $22 an hour, the third-highest in Canada. Due to income tax cuts since 2001, an additional 325,000 low-income British Columbians pay no income tax, which was not the case under that government.

REPLACEMENT OF
OLIVE DEVAUD RESIDENCE

N. Simons: The doctors of Powell River are once again raising alarm bells around the state of the Olive Devaud seniors care facility. In a recent letter to the Minister of Health, they described the facility as a danger to residents
[ Page 2737 ]
and staff. Will the minister do what his government has been promising for years and replace the facility with a new one?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, I met with a couple of regional district directors over that very issue in my office a number of weeks ago. We had a very good discussion. They informed me of the condition of the facility. I do know that it is one of the priority items for Vancouver Coastal to deal with. We actually explored some innovative ways in which that could be brought forward.

I suggested that they definitely should be looking at private sector involvement. I think that's one way we could move the project forward. In fact, one thing we agreed on is that we need to move the planning process and the design process for that forward immediately so we can get moving on Olive Devaud. That's exactly what we're going to do.

N. Simons: A room in the facility was recently closed because of rot in the floor and fears that someone or something would fall through to the level below. The health authority says it has one of the worst ratings in the province and has made it the number one priority for replacement in successive years. It cannot be renovated. Doctors, health professionals, the health authority, the city, the regional district, residents and families all say that a replacement is urgent, because residents and staff are unsafe.

The land is there. The plans are in place. The local government has the money available. When will the minister simply do what's necessary and say that the province is ready to back that plan?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, since 2001 we've invested a record $5 billion in capital right across the province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, as you would know and as the member would well know, in terms of seniors housing — the whole continuum of housing, whether it's assisted-living or residential care housing — over 12,000 brand-new or totally renovated and rehabilitated units right across the province.

That does not mean that we've done every single one of them. As we go through, there are new ones that come in. Regretfully, unfortunately, when we got elected in 2001 there was a huge underinvestment that had taken place in the seniors sector. There's no question about that.

We are doing more than catching up. Olive Devaud is on the radar. We're going to work to make sure that project also moves ahead as soon as we can get the appropriate planning and design work done.

[1410]

FUNDING FOR UBC MIDWIFERY PROGRAM

D. Black: My question is for the Minister of Advanced Education. The University of B.C. has the only midwifery program in western Canada. Despite more than a hundred applicants, the program only admits ten new students each year while demand for these birthing professionals is growing. But the program is in a dire funding crunch and may not admit any new students next year.

My question to the Minister of Advanced Education is: will she ensure that UBC gets the funding it needs to continue to train midwives to meet the needs of women and their families in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The UBC midwifery program is part of the government's commitment to educating the skilled health care workforce that British Columbia needs. There have been no funding cuts and no reduction to the funding of this program. Furthermore, the funding is unchanged, and the ministry's expectations are unchanged. This program is funded by the province to the tune of more than $600,000 a year in annual operating costs, and I am confident that UBC will continue to deliver the program as per our agreement.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

D. Black: Midwives practise cost-effective, evidence-based, women-centred maternity care for 10 percent of the province's births every year. The waiting lists for parents-to-be are growing, and any cut to the UBC midwifery program would only make the situation worse, particularly in rural B.C.

Will the Minister of Advanced Education ensure that adequate funding is provided to continue training the midwives of B.C., and will she say today that the funding will be there to ensure that the program takes in new students in the 2010 academic year? Will she make that guarantee today?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The midwifery program is part of our commitment of over $850 million of health-related capital and operating funding spent at B.C.'s public post-secondary institutions by this government since 2001. In 2001 UBC was the successful proponent for the opportunity to provide this program, based on their budget and their program.

Again, I am confident that UBC will continue to provide this program. UBC is having an internal review, which I expect — and I am sure, in fact — is usual practice at any institution, to continually be evaluating the program to see how they can most effectively offer the program to students in British Columbia.

A. Dix: Just a supplementary to the same minister. In 2010-2011 the risk is that there's going to be no students admitted at a time when there's a serious shortage of midwives. So my question to the minister is simple. Will she take the steps necessary to ensure that the UBC program will admit the students in 2010-2011?
[ Page 2738 ]

Hon. M. Stilwell: I reiterate. The province funds this program at greater than $600,000 a year. I am confident that UBC will provide this program as per our agreement. The ministry's expectations are unchanged.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, hon. Speaker, that's no yes. The government says….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: The government says that even though those places in a critical health area, an area where we absolutely need…. You know, I think it speaks volumes. It speaks volumes that the Minister of Health….

[1415]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just take your seat for a second.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Member.

A. Dix: It speaks volumes that the Minister of Health and the former Minister of Health are speaking negatively about an outstanding profession in health care. It's a valuable profession in health care, all the more needed with health care funding challenges.

My question to the minister is very simple. My….

Interjection.

A. Dix: Well, listen to the former Minister of Health. Listen to the former Minister of Health go, hon. Speaker. Listen to him go. Listen to him express his contempt for yet another group of health care workers. At least they keep it to one group a day.

My question to the Minister of Advanced Education is simple. There is a risk here to this program. The government has an interest here too, because they're presumably running the health care system. Will she take steps to ensure that students are admitted to this program in the 2010-2011 year?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The midwifery program is unique in western Canada. We've made it clear that this is a priority profession. The funding is unchanged. The ministry's expectations are unchanged.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR
RATES FOR TRUCK OPERATORS

H. Bains: Hundreds of concerned truckers tonight are meeting to decide a course of action needed to bring to the attention of the contractors that the lower than prevailing rates, under the blue book, offered to them are not acceptable.

One estimate suggests that the contractor of the Port Mann/Highway 1 expansion will pocket over $240 million as a windfall profit at the expense of the taxpayers and the workers on that site.

My question to the minister is this. Will the minister ensure that the truckers are paid blue book rates as agreed between the province of British Columbia and the B.C. Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association?

Hon. S. Bond: We're certainly aware of these circumstances. We believe that the contractor, Peter Kiewit Sons, is actually an internationally reputable company. This is a discussion between a contractor and its subcontractor. Those discussions are underway, and we expect them to be resolved between the contractor and the subcontractor.

H. Bains: The minister has to understand one thing. When the rates paid to those truckers do not cover the operating cost to operate that truck, what goes? It's the maintenance of that truck, and the road safety of the public is put in jeopardy. Let me remind the minister of some sad realities under this government. The sad reality due to….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

H. Bains: The sad reality of this government's failure to protect the workers in this province. The national average for the roadside inspections: 18.2 percent of trucks failed. In one recent B.C. road check, 41 percent of trucks failed, and they were taken off the road. So it's that serious.

I ask this minister one more time. For road safety and for the safety of the public on the road, will the minister ensure that the contractors live up to the government's own guidelines under the blue book and that truckers working on the project are paid accordingly?

[1420]

Hon. S. Bond: Let's just talk a little bit about our record. In fact, this project alone will mean that there will be 8,000 jobs in British Columbia for British Columbians.
[ Page 2739 ]
For the member opposite to stand on the other side of the House and imply that there are not rigorous safety inspections done and, in fact, that contractors and truckers alike ensure and are responsible for the safety of those vehicles is irresponsible.

Finally, we wouldn't actually be having this discussion about the Port Mann bridge if the member opposite was in charge because, in fact, they didn't even support the building of the Port Mann bridge.

IMPACT OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX
ON TOURISM INDUSTRY

N. Macdonald: Last week this government tinkered with the HST, but I think most British Columbians would agree that a better idea than no HST on an additional $100,000 for a new house would be no HST at all. No HST — that is something that British Columbians could vote for. In fact, I think most British Columbians did vote for that. They did vote for that.

What you're left with is industry after industry trying to deal with this tax. The tourist operators know that the HST is a job killer. I'll just quote from Mr. Porter.

Mr. Porter of Great Canadian Heli-Skiing has written the minister. He's written the Premier. He's written the Minister of Finance, and he says: "The HST will not make our service more competitive. It's going to instead buckle our knees." He goes on to say: "HST, no matter how it is spun" — and everyone knows that this government is a master at spinning; we've seen it again here today — "will be an increase in cost. The HST is going to devastate heli-skiing."

This government, this minister, this Premier campaigned on a promise to not introduce the HST. Why is the minister betraying that promise? Why is he bringing in a job killer of a tax?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think if the member has followed the writings of some of the leading economists in Canada, he will know that this is actually the number one job generator in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: Yesterday we were visited by representatives of the mining industry who said that this is the single most important measure we can do to create jobs in the mining industry.

I would suggest that that member, the member who asked the question, is totally out of touch with the forest sector of which he is the Forests critic, because what the forest industry tells us is that the shift to the harmonized sales tax will actually make a difference in the export price of our lumber of $7 per thousand board feet. That is the difference between international sales and no international sales.

[1425]

I would add, again, to this member in his capacity as Forests critic, that our move to the HST is going to make the difference between mills staying open in his constituency or being forced to close.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

N. Simons: I present a petition with the signatures of over 1,300 people calling for the re-reconfiguration of traffic in the Gibsons area. I present that today.

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. Coell: I'm pleased to table the annual report, 2008, of the Labour Relations Board.

Petitions

M. Farnworth: I'm tabling a petition with over a thousand names of people who are opposed to the hated, disgusting, despised, detestable, duplicitous HST.

Mr. Speaker: Member. Reminding the member….

D. Black: I'm pleased to ask for leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

D. Black: I have postcards in a petition format from thousands of UBC students who ask the government to please reduce and reverse the cuts to student aid — from the Alma Mater Society.

A. Dix: I rise to present a petition on behalf of 1,136 British Columbians in support of ambulance paramedics.

I also present a petition from residents of Kamloops and across British Columbia opposed to the government's plan to reorganize and diminish the number of beds at Ponderosa Lodge.

H. Lali: I'll be presenting two petitions. The first one is from my constituency with hundreds of signatures of folks who oppose the introduction of the HST.

The second petition is actually from the residents of Lac La Hache in the constituency of Cariboo-Chilcotin. It's almost 300 names that were gathered by Hazel Parker, who is 80-plus years old. She went door to door collecting hundreds of signatures opposed to the introduction of the HST.
[ Page 2740 ]

R. Fleming: I seek leave to introduce a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

R. Fleming: I would like to table a petition from residents, constituents of mine in Victoria–Swan Lake — hundreds of names — to stop this government's HST tax.

N. Simons: I have a petition signed by approximately 700 people opposing the sinking — purposeful sinking — of the Annapolis warship off the coast in Halkett Bay on Gambier Island. Further details to come.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Health. In this chamber, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Office of the Premier.

[1430-1435]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

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

The committee met at 2:40 p.m.

On Vote 10: Office of the Premier, $11,535,000.

Hon. G. Campbell: I am pleased to rise today to introduce the estimates of the Office of the Premier. I'd like to introduce the public service representatives who are with me and thank them for their contributions.

Allan Seckel is the Deputy Minister to the Premier and cabinet secretary. He is also head of the British Columbia public service. Lorne Brownsey is the deputy minister of corporate initiatives and intergovernmental relations. Debbie Fayad is the executive financial officer, and Michelle Leamy is director of executive operations.

As we begin these budget estimates, I'd like to just speak briefly about the challenges that we've had to confront over the last year and the opportunities that we can embrace as we go forward. There's no question that we do live in globally challenging times.

We're facing the single largest economic downturn we have experienced in almost three decades. That has had a significant impact on our revenues in British Columbia, but it has not had an impact on our goals and objectives as a province to ensure that we provide the best quality of life for the people that live here.

We have continuing concern about building a new relationship with first nations that creates opportunities for first nations and aboriginal people in our province, that closes the gaps in health care, in education and in social and economic development.

We continue to strive to be at the forefront of dealing with the challenge of our generation, which is climate change. It will affect not just those of us who live today but those who live tomorrow and decades hence if we are not willing to embrace the challenges that are in front of us and do so with action. Our government has been concerned about pursuing that action and ensuring that we can move ahead.

We've all been challenged by the prospect of the H1N1 pandemic. Again, I think British Columbia's public service, our B.C. Centre for Disease Control, has done an exceptional job of dealing with a very challenging and, in many ways, new situation, I think, for all of us. This has been the largest national immunization program in the history of the country, and British Columbia, once again, and our public service and public health officials are seen for their leadership and the efficacy of the work they do.

I also recognize, as I'm sure all members do, that within a very short period of time, in just 80 days, the eyes of the world will be on us as we host the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games. It represents an enormous opportunity for British Columbians to invite the world and to display our character and our spirit as a province, the character of our country as we move forward into the 21st century.

Our goal is obviously to use that as a launching pad into the 21st century, with new green technologies, showing the possibilities that exist for using new wood products to further our environmental agendas, which are shared around the world. I think that all of these initiatives are critical to our economic and social well-being as we move ahead.

With those comments, I am pleased to take any questions with regard to the estimates of the Office of the Premier.

C. James: I thank the Premier for his opening remarks, and I'll just make a few opening remarks and then also move into the questions.

As we all know, these estimates are an opportunity to engage the Premier in a very serious discussion about the opportunities, about the direction that the government's taken, the policy direction, and to be able to have answered questions that the public is asking about the direction that the government's going.

I'm certain it would be no surprise to the Premier that people have grave concerns about the policy direction of his government. British Columbians from all walks of life, in fact, have expressed to me their growing concerns with the credibility of this government, and we'll get into some specific questions around that.

Specific promises that were made over the last number of months that were casually tossed aside have raised
[ Page 2741 ]
huge concern on behalf of the public. This includes promises about the province's financial situation, which, as the Premier has said, is one of the most critical situations facing British Columbians — the economy.

There certainly is a great deal of question around the government's credibility when it comes to changing the tax system, when it comes to plans to cut vital services. Everyone will remember the Premier's commitments around protecting health care and education, and we've certainly seen the results since then. We'll be exploring that and asking some questions around that.

Each of the areas that I'll touch on and each of the promises that have been thrown aside really have, in turn, served to break the bond of trust between the public and this government. These estimates are an opportunity for the Premier to be upfront with the public, to answer some of those very serious questions that they have.

[1445]

I approach this process in the spirit of openness, in the spirit of transparency. I'm sure the Premier will do the same, and I'm very much looking forward to hearing from him on those issues.

I'd like to start with a very important area, and that's the whole area of the deficit and the direction the Premier took during the election campaign. On September 2 the Premier was being questioned about his election claim that the budget deficit would be "$495 million, maximum." In responding to those questions, the Premier revealed for the first time on September 2 that he had been briefed by his deputy minister during the election.

That briefing included comments about the government's weakening revenue and the impact that would have on the budget. Here's a statement that the Premier made under questioning by the opposition: "…I did have conversations with my deputy minister. They were largely with regard to H1N1. In one of those conversations she did raise the subject of the budget. That was in May. She told me that there were revenue pressures."

Now, media reports suggest the briefing regarding the province's weakening revenues occurred on the Thursday before the election, so that's May 7. Could the Premier confirm that was the day he received the briefing from his deputy.

Hon. G. Campbell: I will confirm that I did have a conversation with my deputy in the days prior to the election. Frankly, I had probably two or three conversations — I'm not sure how many — during the election period. They were fundamentally focused on H1N1, as I mentioned.

There was one of those days a few days before the election where, in fact, I was informed that there were revenue pressures. I was also informed that our staff believed those revenue pressures were manageable and that we were going to be able to accomplish the goals we set in the February budget.

C. James: Did the Premier ask for any more information when he was told this information by his deputy?

Hon. G. Campbell: Candidly, it was a passing comment and part of a conversation that was basically consumed by H1N1. I think it's fair to say that there are ups and downs in every budget year, every budget period that we go through.

I often get briefings. I knew that there would be a detailed briefing that would be scheduled for following the election. That has normally been the case, regardless of who's elected. It was not something that I pursued to any extent whatsoever, as to say, "Thank you very much," and that was it.

C. James: This is concerning information that the Premier has just received. This is a week or so before the election. The Premier isn't exactly sure of the date this conversation took place. It's been reported in the media that that was May 7, but the Premier himself says that he isn't quite sure when that occurred. This is very concerning information that has just been passed along to him by his deputy.

Again, my question to the Premier is: did he not feel that it was important to ask questions about what the deputy meant by revenue dropping?

Hon. G. Campbell: The Leader of the Opposition, like myself, was involved in an election campaign at that time. I think that everyone in the spring realized there were challenges with regard to the economy.

Those challenges were starting to be reflected. We'd actually had a relatively good month in terms of employment, but we know that the employment numbers were going down, so I was not surprised that there were pressures. Therefore, when the comment was made that, yes, there are pressures…. I think the comment was made they could be $200 million to $300 million. At that time there was also a sense that we could actually meet our budget targets.

[1450]

To put it in context, a $200 million to $300 million shift in revenue projections is about a 0.5 percent — that's 0.5 percent — challenge.

We meet those challenges on an ongoing basis — have in many budget years — where one component might be offset by others. In fact, I think one of the things that's important is that we have been able to manage those in a way that has allowed us to meet our budget targets. In fact, in 2008-09 this government exceeded its government target in terms of a surplus in spite of the fact there were huge challenges that had to be confronted through the fall of 2008 and the spring of 2009.

So yes, I understood that there were revenue challenges. I also understood that we could actually meet our budget targets that had been set in the February budget,
[ Page 2742 ]
and as has been the case in the past, I had every expectation we would not just meet those expectations but we had an opportunity perhaps to exceed them.

I didn't verbalize that to the deputy. There wasn't a discussion about it. I was just informed there were revenue pressures that our staff felt could be offset by the ongoing management and cost-reduction strategies that we had already put in place as a result of the February budget.

C. James: The Premier says that he didn't share those thoughts with his deputy minister. He unfortunately didn't share those thoughts with the public either.

Now, the Premier says that he didn't verbalize that to his deputy, that he didn't have a discussion, that he simply received the information from his deputy. Yet he says he was confident that measures could be taken and that this could be dealt with.

Could the Premier tell me, then, what he did base that on? If he hadn't had a conversation with his deputy about the details, if he hadn't looked at the kind of revenue pressures that were there, what did the Premier base that information on?

Hon. G. Campbell: My confidence was really based on, as I mentioned, the size of the challenge that we faced, which was 0.5 percent of our revenues at that time. I think it's also important to note that it was really based on our record. It is not unusual to have some volatility in both revenues and expenses as you go through a budget year. This was something that we had known.

We were facing a challenging time. We had been very conservative with our February budget. We had said that we were going to look for $1.9 billion of discretionary spending savings as we went through the budget year. That was something that was going to have to take place, obviously, following the election. But I can tell you that our public servants were working diligently on that throughout. So there were no alarm bells set. It was really, frankly, a statement of information.

You know, the confidence really comes out of the fact that we have managed to manage our fiscal frameworks in British Columbia under this government successfully. We have exceeded our projections in terms of our fiscal management over a number of consecutive years of balanced budgets — eight consecutive budgets, in fact, with significant balanced budgets — and significant surpluses to pay down the debt, and we have typically found ways that we can manage through small variations that take place within the budget.

I think it's also important to note, when you look at the budget frameworks that we have in place, that even the opposition said at the time that they felt our projections for February were prudent and were financially at least worthy of them building their projected budgets out of that. We were all subject to the same discussion that was taking place.

The economies were having a great challenge in front of them. We knew that. But I also knew that we had outperformed our colleagues across the country in the past. We had performed beyond expectations, as I mentioned just a minute ago, in the 2008-09 year while others were facing significant deficits. We actually managed to have a surplus over 40 percent in excess of what we had projected the previous year.

That's what my confidence was based on — a very small variation on the one hand and a record of success and performance on the other.

[1455]

C. James: Everyone knows, including the Premier, that this was an unprecedented year, that this was an unprecedented economic time. In fact, as the Premier said at the start, this was an unprecedented economic time. The kind of global challenges we're facing are unprecedented.

We'd also seen that the forecasters had downgraded their predictions, and we'll get into that discussion a little bit further along, but the Premier had had every indication, going into the election campaign, that in fact revenue was plummeting, that the situation was much worse than the February budget had showed. Yet when the deputy informs the Premier that revenues are falling off….

I'll quote the Premier from a Vaughn Palmer article: "At that time the deputy told me there were financial pressures. She had been informed by the Deputy Minister of Finance that there were measures we could take to allow us to meet our February budget." I just want to get this clear, so I'm clear. The Premier says that he did not ask at all what any of those measures were?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm sure the opposition has had a chance to canvass this during the Finance Ministry's estimates, but let me just go back on a couple of issues. We all recognize that we face global challenges. In fact, we recognized that we faced global challenges in February of 2009 when we introduced our budget.

The forecast panel are independent forecasters we brought together — 12 forecasters brought together. Their average forecast was zero percent economic growth for this year, for 2009. We actually suggested that it would be minus 0.9 percent. That is a fairly significant step in terms of being conservative in terms of what we were looking at for our future. We were clear about that as we put together our budget.

I note that the opposition's budget actually called for 600 million more dollars in revenue coming in. They were basing it on our fundamental budget and, evidently, the world as they saw it at the time. I think what's important to note is that no one is pretending in our government, or I don't think any other government, that they knew exactly what was going to happen with the economy.
[ Page 2743 ]

We tried to be conservative in terms of how we were dealing with it. We were upfront and transparent in terms of how we had to deal with it. As I mentioned earlier, we actually identified in February that it would require us to make some….

I think that through the campaign I pointed out that this was going to require some very difficult decisions. These were difficult decisions that would have to be made, no matter who was in the government, if we were going to maintain the financial credibility that was important.

The importance of that financial credibility, I think, is reflected in the fact that when we have a triple-A credit rating, we save significant dollars for the taxpayers of British Columbia as we move into a major capital program, as we have over the last year.

I think the fact is, again, that the public service was hard at work in terms of finding those discretionary savings. This was a 0.5 percent challenge in terms of the revenue challenge, if you looked at $200 million to $300 million, and it was a revenue challenge that we felt, in view of the experience we've had and in view of the work that was being done, could be met.

Frankly, the discussion wasn't nearly as long as the discussion between the Leader of the Opposition and me. It was much shorter than that, but that was the essence of the discussion.

C. James: Just to remind the Premier that in fact during the election campaign the Premier did not say that difficult decisions would have to be made. He in fact told the public that health care and education would be protected. Those are the fundamental commitments that were made to the people of British Columbia, including the fact that the deficit would be $495 million, maximum, and we'll get into a little more of that discussion as well.

In fact, it was the opposite that was told to the public during the election campaign. The public was led to believe that those numbers were the numbers when the Premier had received information on May 7 that in fact revenue was plummeting.

Just a question around the meetings. The Premier mentioned he had two or three discussions during the election campaign. Previously, it took us until September to get the Premier to admit that he was briefed by his deputy on May 7 or around that date. Now the Premier mentions two or three other discussions during the election. Could the Premier please tell me who those discussions were with and when?

Hon. G. Campbell: First, I want to acknowledge what the Leader of the Opposition said. We did say we would protect health care funding. We did say we would protect education funding. In fact, we increased both.

[1500]

We increased health care funding substantially, and education funding has increased by $84 million. I don't remember the exact amount for health care, but it's in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

I know this. Over the next three years the health care budget is increasing by 19 percent at a time when we're looking at very low economic growth throughout the province. We, in fact, have more than met the commitments we made with regard to health care and education.

In terms of protecting the services and making sure that those services are sustainable, we talked a great deal during the election about sustaining our services for the long term. We talked a great deal throughout the election about the challenges of meeting our service requirements at the same time that we were managing our financial requirements and maintaining a financially prudent stance as a government.

I think it's important to note that with this budget, in fact, there are significant increases of expenditures that are taking place — not just in health care and not just in education — to provide people who require income supports. Obviously, substantial increases in expenditures were required for the forest fire season, which was a record forest fire season this year — budgeted, this time, at over $400 million.

We had additional expenditures that we have recognized and reflected in terms of H1N1 and dealing with the challenges of that public health problem that we have in front of us today.

I think in terms of what we said during the election, we were very clear that we wanted our economy to be in a position where it was stronger as we came out of this economic downturn. We were going to continue to provide support for health care and education. In fact, many of the discretionary expenditures where we were able to actually find savings…. Those savings are directly funding those health care and education services that are so critical.

C. James: I could argue with the Premier around protecting health care and education. I would suggest that if he spent some time talking to teachers and parents and sports groups and arts groups and Special Olympics and children living in poverty that, in fact, there would be a differing opinion.

But I come back to the question I asked the Premier, which was related to how many discussions he had with staff during the election campaign. The Premier refused to acknowledge until September of this year that he had actually had a conversation with his former deputy minister around the budget, that he had actually received information that revenue was plummeting.

He now today has said that he had two or three calls. My question, again, is to the Premier. When were those two or three calls, who were they with, and what subjects were discussed?
[ Page 2744 ]

Hon. G. Campbell: I thought I was clear earlier with regard to those issues. I believe…. I can recall having two discussions with my deputy. It was with my deputy. I think it's important to note that the public service only deals with the members of the cabinet when there are issues of particular import as we go through an election period. The discussions I had with my deputy focused on both H1N1 and the challenges.

I think that it's kind of easy, in some ways, to forget how people felt about H1N1 as it started occurring in the spring. I can tell the Leader of the Opposition and the public that there were many, many parts of government that were directly involved in dealing with the challenges of H1N1.

There was a time during the election where I was requested by the medical health officer to make the point of talking to people about H1N1 and the challenges that we faced with H1N1 and how individual citizens could help. I don't remember the day, but it was done on a day during the election, one morning during the election. I had a briefing prior to that meeting the night before, and I had another conversation with my deputy, who I've mentioned. Those are the two that I recall.

I think that it is important to recognize, again, that when the…. At the tail end of a conversation with regard to H1N1, it was mentioned that there were revenue pressures. Those revenue pressures were between $200 million and $300 million, which is a 0.5 percent change in the revenues that we had.

In the same breath, it was pointed out that our officials had been working very hard on the cost containment strategies we had identified in the budget in February. As a result of that — with the difficult decisions, obviously — we'd be in a position where we could secure the budgets that we had talked about.

[1505]

C. James: I just want to be sure I'm clear, because I've heard the Premier say a couple of different things here. I heard, "Two or three discussions" — whether that includes the discussion on May 7, which he finally admitted to in September, that occurred around the briefing with his deputy on the revenue plummeting.

Again, my question is to the Premier. Just so I'm clear, and I think it's important for the public to know how many conversations the Premier had during the election campaign. Were those conversations with his deputy, as he says, and what was discussed at each of those discussions?

Hon. G. Campbell: As I said earlier, I recall two to three discussions that we had. As I said earlier, those discussions primarily focused on H1N1. There is very restrictive interaction between the senior public service and anybody that's running for office. The members of cabinet — if there is an emergency that comes up, they are informed about that if there's a requirement for government to act.

I can recall that there was a discussion, as I mentioned earlier. The public service was very engaged in trying to deal with the challenges of H1N1. That's, frankly, the primary discussion that I remember having with my deputy as we went through that period of time.

C. James: Did the Premier request those briefings, or did his former deputy?

Hon. G. Campbell: As I mentioned, the public service and a deputy's committee were deeply involved in the discussions with regard to H1N1. My recollection is that I was contacted by my deputy, but I can't say that I didn't call her back sometime. I don't recall all those details, to be candid.

I do recall that the conversations were relatively quick. They were, frankly, on what the deputies needed to know. If they needed a direction, they asked. It wasn't very often that I was called — as I mentioned, I think maybe two or three times. But I think the important thing was that this was about trying to meet a public health initiative, and it may have been required that they have some direct political direction.

[1510]

One specific one that I do recall is that I was asked specifically about the acquisition of additional Tamiflu vaccine, which was important, I think. Frankly, the direction was pretty simple. It was: do what we need to do to make sure that we provide the most we can for the public health.

C. James: As the Premier knows, often we receive the Premier's calendar through FOI requests. In the Premier's calendar for the May 7 date — when the Premier says he had the conversation with his deputy where she talked about the falling revenues — there was not any indication of a meeting on that date with his deputy.

So my question would be to the Premier. Are there other times that the deputy is briefing the Premier where it wouldn't be entered into the calendar?

Hon. G. Campbell: I don't recall the calendar for May 7. I don't, frankly, during an election campaign or a non-election campaign, record every telephone conversation I had. You know, I had a conversation. I don't think it was a specifically organized meeting with my deputy. Frankly, I'm not certain of the date. I know it was sometime in that period of time, but I don't recall the date specifically.

C. James: Just to, again, touch on May 7 or the date…. The Premier says he doesn't recall exactly that date. I recognize that it was the middle of an election campaign or getting to the end of an election campaign, but
[ Page 2745 ]
I would imagine that, in fact, it would be even more important to make sure those dates were written down.

We all were running busy schedules. We all had very, very full days and evenings. I can't imagine that it wouldn't be booked into the Premier's schedule to be able to have a briefing with his deputy.

Just to follow on with that, would the Premier say that briefings on the financial situation in the province were a regular part of his deputy's duties? The briefings on the economy and the fiscal situation of the province were a regular part of his deputy's briefings?

Hon. G. Campbell: First, I think that it's important to note that I did not get regular briefings during the election campaign. I think what's critical in terms of my schedule is that if there was a requirement for the deputy to discuss with me, she was put through wherever I was in the province at the time. So they were conversations. They weren't detailed briefings.

When we are not in an election campaign, it is not unusual for the deputy to be in attendance with the Minister of Finance if he's giving me a briefing with regard to the finances of the province.

C. James: Did the Premier's chief of staff, Martyn Brown, also sit in or brief the Premier during that May 7 call?

Hon. G. Campbell: No. As I mentioned, it was a phone conversation. The answer is no.

C. James: When the Premier received this information — he received the information on or around May 7, he recalls — that the revenues were in trouble in the province, did the Premier phone his Finance Minister and have discussions about this issue?

Hon. G. Campbell: No.

C. James: Again, I think the public really will be scratching their heads. This is a difficult economic time. These are challenging times in the province. Revenues are plummeting. Forecasters have been downgrading their predictions.

[1515]

The Premier receives information on May 7, or around that date, that tells him that revenues are plummeting in British Columbia, that revenues are falling, and the Premier didn't think it was important to talk to his Finance Minister to get a little more detail about those revenues?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, I have to reiterate that we were looking at a challenge of between $200 million and $300 million. That is about 0.5 percent of the provincial revenues. It's the kind of number that we have managed in the past. It wasn't something that I was particularly concerned about. I believed that it was going to be controllable.

Our staff had said to me that this is manageable. They said the revenues are taking a hit, and it's manageable. I felt confident that we'd be able to go through this period and maintain the budget levels that we set in the February budget.

C. James: Did the Premier talk to any other cabinet ministers about the information that he received on May 7?

Hon. G. Campbell: Not that I recall. As I went through the campaign, I didn't have that much contact with any of our candidates except for when I was in their riding. I was, like I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition was, travelling all over the province of British Columbia. We were, as she mentioned earlier, busy all the time with the campaign.

Again, the information to me was not something that set off anything except for that we were in a challenging economic time. I think the Leader of the Opposition and myself both recognized that as we went through the campaign. We talked about it as we went through the campaign.

I felt we had a budget strategy that was achievable. It did call for the finding of savings of up to $1.9 billion. The opposition, in fact, thought they could find $3.2 billion. It did say: here's what we think our revenues should be. The opposition thought their revenues would be $600 million larger than that.

We're all working with the information that we have available. We went through the campaign. It is important, I think, to note that our staff had been working hard on the restrictive spending regime that we had in place. They were looking for savings. They felt it was a manageable number, and I felt it was manageable.

It did not in any way take away from the challenges that we knew we would face when we introduced the February budget. It actually simply reiterated the fact that we were going to have to make some very difficult decisions, as we went through this very challenging economic time, so we could come out on the other side of this economic downturn as a stronger economy, a more productive and more competitive economy that was able to provide excellent public services in a whole array of service departments across government.

C. James: Just again to quote from the Premier about what he was told on that call with his former deputy: "At the time she told me there were financial pressures. She'd also been informed by the Deputy Minister of Finance there were a number of measures he felt he could take that would allow us to meet our February budget." Could the Premier tell us what those measures were?
[ Page 2746 ]

Hon. G. Campbell: We did not have a detailed discussion about the ways that the deputy minister felt that we could deal with this. It was a general discussion that said that we believe we can meet these challenges.

[1520]

So yes, we did have revenue pressures. I was clear about those. They were about 0.5 percent of our revenues. We did have revenue pressures. We also had management in place and opportunities in place to actually meet those. Many of them were identified in the February budget, and they have been reflected in the September budget — for example, a 24 percent reduction in travel expenditures. That was about $18 million.

I want to be clear. This is what we got in terms of the briefing after the election. This was not something that was part of the conversation that we had. The conversation was very high level and relatively short. It was simply: "We have revenue pressures." I recognized that. "We believe that there are ways we can meet those revenue pressures with savings, and they would be in areas of travel savings, professional services, business and office expenses savings, advertising and publicity savings, and other areas of discretionary spending."

In fact, my recollection was that it was simply: "We believe that we can meet those." The Deputy Minister of Finance felt that he had a number of ways we could do that. We had highlighted those in the budget in February. We've continued with those as we've gone from the February budget on to the September budget.

C. James: I just want to go back to this issue again with the Premier, because it's, in fact, his words that say there were a number of measures that he felt he could take that would allow us to meet the February budget. The Premier says that it was a general conversation, but I ask again. That's a very specific phrase: "A number of measures." What were those measures?

Hon. G. Campbell: I have to reiterate some of the things I've said. It was a short discussion. It was a challenge, but it was a manageable challenge, and it was, frankly, a relatively small amount of money. We had the public sector at work on looking at those areas of discretionary spending that we had identified in the February budget, and that was effectively the extent of the conversation.

As I mentioned earlier, it was a much, much shorter conversation than this discussion. It was based on, I think, what we laid out in February and what had taken place and what our experience was from the past.

C. James: I'm just taking the Premier's words back to him, which were that there were a number of measures. I think it's important that the public understand the kind of information that the Premier was receiving, the kind of information that he didn't share with the public just a few days before the election.

You know, the Premier says in his quote that there were a number of measures he felt he could take. So there must have been some dialogue and some conversation with his deputy for him to be able to make the quote to say that there were a number of measures. So I ask again if the Premier could please tell me: what were those measures?

Hon. G. Campbell: I want to reiterate that this was a short conversation. The measures were identified in February: savings and discretionary spending. A number of areas similar to some of the areas that the opposition identified when they said they thought they could find $3.1 billion in savings — they were travel savings, professional services savings, office and business expenses savings, advertising and publication savings and discretionary grants savings. That's five broad areas that probably in my head I thought about.

[1525]

We did not have a discussion about how much more or whatever. That didn't take place. It was: "We're having a challenge with revenues, about $200 million to $300 million, and we have the management in place so that we think we can handle it."

C. James: The Premier says it included travel savings. Did the deputy, then, mention travel savings to the Premier?

Hon. G. Campbell: The deputy did not articulate a series of savings. She said there were things that we could do that would manage these costs, and that was the extent of the conversation.

Yes, we were having revenue challenges. We felt that they could be managed and that they might require challenging decisions. We knew that in February when we announced that we would have to find $1.9 billion in discretionary spending savings.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

C. James: Again, just so I'm clear, the Premier says that it wasn't a discussion about specifics. The deputy minister had just told the Premier a few days before the election that there were financial pressures in British Columbia, and the Premier says there were a number of measures, but he didn't have a conversation with the deputy about what those measures were? The Premier was just making them up?

Hon. G. Campbell: I want to be very clear about this. Yes, I was told that there was between $200 million and $300 million of revenue challenge that we had. There were a number of measures that could be taken. They had already been identified through the February budget. The staff was hard at work on those. I did not get
[ Page 2747 ]
a detailed briefing on those measures, but it was part of what the overall budget was in February.

Again, I have to reiterate, the conversation was primarily about H1N1. Any conversations that I had in that period of time were primarily about H1N1 and how we dealt with that public health risk.

C. James: Just again for the public, because I think it's important, the Premier received information about falling revenues on around May 7, as he recalls, and just to be clear, the Premier didn't do anything with that information.

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, if I can just reiterate, the conversations were generally about H1N1. There was a brief comment with regard to revenues and the potential to meet the challenge of those revenues. I didn't have a discussion with people about it. I didn't have a discussion with any other members of the staff.

I wasn't in a position where I could follow it through. There are very limited discussions that take place between the public service and those of us who are running for office at the time of an election. I really don't have much more that I can do to try to elucidate this for the Leader of the Opposition. I hope that's clear.

C. James: It appears that the Premier received the information that there were falling revenues, and the Premier didn't ask any questions, didn't ask any specifics, didn't ask for more information, didn't think that that information was important to share with the public and didn't feel that he should share that information or talk about the concerns with the Finance Minister. I think that's concerning and disturbing, I have to say, because of the kind of economic situation we're in and the worries that the public was having.

[1530]

Just another question around that May 7 briefing or the date that the Premier recalls. Was the HST talked about in that call?

Hon. G. Campbell: At the end of a discussion with regard to the H1N1, I was informed, with regard to the revenue pressure, that they were manageable.

I did not discuss that with anyone else. Why didn't I? Because I had confidence in the public service. Their record of performance with this government, I think, has been exceptional. It is recognized by outside agencies — not something that I claim for them. It's something that they have earned when they get a triple-A credit rating and are recognized internationally for the work they have done.

I did have confidence in them. It wouldn't have been appropriate for me to give them any kind of policy direction. It wouldn't have been appropriate to have a detailed, full-blown review. That wouldn't have been appropriate for me; it wouldn't have been appropriate for the Leader of the Opposition.

Finally, with regard to the HST, the answer is: no, that was not discussed at that time.

C. James: Just to the Premier, then: did he not feel it was appropriate to share with the people of British Columbia the concern around falling revenues?

Hon. G. Campbell: I actually did talk with British Columbians about the challenging economic times that we were confronting. I was very clear that the February budget was going to be a difficult budget for us to meet as we went through that.

It identified $1.9 billion of discretionary spending decisions that would have to be made. Again, I would note that we were not nearly as aggressive with that as the opposition was — who claimed, I think, $3.2 billion of discretionary savings. They also thought the revenues would be higher than we did. We were very conservative in those estimates.

I don't think anyone in May — or from April through to May, through the election campaign — didn't believe and didn't recognize we were in challenging economic times.

This is a relatively small amount that was manageable, and the advice…. Frankly, from my perspective it's the kind of thing that takes place in our budgets every year. So yes, we could manage it. I think we have an exceptional public sector that is able to manage those things in a way that's not just helpful but actually that British Columbians benefit from across the province.

C. James: No one disputes the wonderful people we have working in the public service. We have exceptional people who work in the public service and provide support to all of us in British Columbia. This is an issue around the public and what the public had a right to know.

These were difficult economic situations, as the Premier has said. Revenues were plummeting. The Premier had been informed a few days before the election that the revenues were plummeting. Didn't the Premier feel it was important for the public to hear that his $495 million deficit could be at risk?

Hon. G. Campbell: I guess what the challenge is, is that at that particular time I didn't feel — and the public service didn't feel — it was at risk. Yes, there were revenue challenges. Yes, they could be met. They were manageable. I think that was really the message: "Yes, we have revenue challenges; yes, they're manageable." That's what I knew.

[1535]

C. James: How would the Premier know that the public service felt that they could manage those challenges?
[ Page 2748 ]

Hon. G. Campbell: As I mentioned earlier, I was told by my deputy that we were facing some revenue challenges. She also told me that she felt, and she had been informed by the Deputy Minister of Finance, that those revenue challenges could be managed, and they were manageable. That did not mean it would be an easy budget. It was going to require difficult decisions, but they were manageable.

C. James: I'd just like to read a quote to the Premier: "It's dishonest to try and portray the books differently, and it's fundamental in our democracy that the taxpayers who elect us have a right to know what the bottom line is. They have the right to know what the true financial position of the government of the day is so that people can be held accountable."

Does the Premier agree with this statement?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think, obviously, it's important for the public to know what the bottom line and what many of the lines leading up to the government's bottom line are. The fact of the matter is that the bottom line didn't sound to me like it was going to change at that point. I think that it's been recognized, in fact — not again by people necessarily in government, but outside government — that we have managed our finances well in the province of British Columbia. That's why we've had successive credit rating upgrades through this last number of years.

I think it's also important to note that both before and after the election, before and after the September budgets, our triple-A credit rating has been recognized. Those things are because we do have a very transparent set of books. We are clear about the direction we're going in. We're clear about the initiatives we've undertaken. Our budgets are recognized for their transparency, and they will continue to be.

C. James: Just to remind the Premier, the quote actually said — speaking of the public: "They have the right to know what the true financial position of the government of the day is so that people can be held accountable." Those are the Premier's own words, spoken in this very House in 1996.

So I'd like to ask the Premier again, because this is an important and fundamental question for British Columbians: didn't he feel it was important to let the public know, as he says in his quote, the financial position of the government of the day and that the $495 million deficit could be at risk?

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me say that I've tried to relay the conversations that I've had as best I can. I did not believe that the $495 million deficit was at risk. I felt that what we had put forward was achievable. I felt that for a significant period of time after the election. That did not mean that we didn't require to make difficult decisions, but it did mean it was achievable.

So the bottom line: the $495 million deficit, I believed, was achievable. I was clear with that with British Columbians. I was also clear with British Columbians that it would require us to make difficult decisions.

C. James: I guess, to sum up, the Premier says no, he didn't feel it was important to share the information with British Columbians. No, he didn't feel it was important to be up front about the fiscal situation of the day. I think that certainly leads to the cynicism and the kind of concern that you have out there in the public around budget issues.

[1540]

This was a difficult economic time. The public saw revenues shifting. They saw forecasters downgrading their predictions, yet the Premier continued up until the day of the election to say to the public: "It's $495 million maximum; protect health care and education." Yet he had information, on or about May 7, as he says, that told him revenues were in trouble.

I think it's very concerning that what we've heard here today is that the Premier didn't feel it was his job or his role nor important to share that information with the public.

In fact, that's part of the reason we brought forward a resolution, a private member's bill, around an independent budget officer. I've heard the Finance Minister's response. I'd like to ask the Premier to give a response around whether the Premier supports our call for an independent budget officer.

The Chair: In estimates, if I can remind the Leader of the Opposition, we do not allow the discussion of legislation.

Hon. G. Campbell: I'll just remind the Leader of the Opposition that this fall we had a full review of our budgeting process in British Columbia. It was a report that was authored by Douglas Enns and other people with regard to our budget process.

The process and the practices actually got a very strong review, a very positive review, from Mr. Enns. That was set up as a result of earlier legislation that had been passed.

It's important, also, to note that the budgets are signed off by the deputy of Finance. To reiterate the words of the Leader of the Opposition just a few minutes ago, we have excellent public servants in British Columbia, and their professionalism is beyond question.

We have a transparent process. We are GAAP-compliant. It's because of all of those things that we actually have a triple-A credit rating in British Columbia, the highest credit rating you can get in the country and the highest credit rating that's received among other
[ Page 2749 ]
provinces. That credit rating has just been confirmed for British Columbia.

I believe we have an open, transparent budget process. As I mentioned earlier, in the 2008-09 fiscal year, a time where we were suddenly buffeted by substantial winds of change in the global economy…. I can recall in 2008 having a briefing from the governor of the Bank of Canada, at the Council of the Federation, where he pointed out that he felt British Columbia was going to grow throughout the economic downturn. In fact, right up until September of 2008 we were informed that our province, unlike many others, was going to be able to go through this economically challenging time.

I think that we had a very clear budget statement in February. We have reiterated the directions we're trying to take in the budget that we are dealing with today. I think that budget is not just transparent and open, but it's my goal and objective to outperform our projections this year as we have in other years.

[1545]

C. James: Just to continue on and to comment on the Premier's comment about the civil service. Again, these aren't questions around the openness and transparency of the civil service. These are questions around the openness and transparency, or lack of, by this government and by this Premier.

I want to talk a little bit about how we got the information around the May 7 briefing, because I think this goes to the concern the public has around the lack of information that they get from this government on when they knew what, why they didn't share that information with the public.

We hear the Premier talking about being open and accountable, but we see just the opposite when it comes to finding information like this out. Even as late as September of this year, when the Premier was confronted with questions about the knowledge that he had around revenue pressures and the effect on the budget, the Premier denied any knowledge at all. This was all the way up until late September.

In fact, this is what the Premier said to reporters when he was first asked, and it's a quote from the Premier: "Well, I didn't know that. Did you know that? I did not know that. I was not frankly aware of what the impact was in terms of the revenue."

So, again, my question is to the Premier. Why did he claim ignorance at that point in time and claim he didn't know anything about changes in revenue?

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me start by pointing out again that the review that was done was done in September with regard to the budget process that had taken place. If I was asked a question in September, I can tell you candidly that there were lots of things that I knew in September that I did not know in May or April or March or February. In fact, I think it's clear that most people didn't know what was going to take place between May and August and September of 2009.

Most people didn't know that the Canadian dollar was going to start a rapid climb between May and August of 2009. Most people didn't know that there was going to be a decoupling of natural gas revenues from oil revenues, which has been the traditional way that natural gas revenues have tracked. They decoupled this year.

Most people didn't know how corporations and personal individuals were going to use their tax losses in terms of the revenues that we would generate as a province. Most people didn't know what was going to be happening directly with regard to a number of our resource and commodity prices that we have depended on in our economy in British Columbia.

I never claimed in September that I knew everything that was going to happen by September back in May or in April. I don't think anyone does. I've been very clear. I have been as clear as I can be with regard to the discussions I had with regard to the potential challenges with revenue and the fact that they were manageable. I've been clear that it was a very short conversation. There's not much more I can offer to elucidate that in terms of these estimates.

I can say this, though. When Mr. Enns, who is a recognized expert in this field; David Baxter, a well-known British Columbia economist; Don Calder, who participated in the 1999 review of the budget processes; Colin Kinsley, a highly regarded municipal elected official; Jim Cutt, an economist and someone who's been recognized in not just British Columbia but across the country; Jill Leversage; and Alison Morse all say that we have a very transparent and open budget process, I think it's important to note that they're not passing a comment on the decisions that are made within the budget. They are passing comment on how the budget is presented to the public and whether those who would like to know can find out and discover what's taking place.

Similarly, with our September budget we are very open with the challenges we faced. We were very open with the revenue challenges which became apparent as we came from the end of June out till August. I think that that's a critical component of any budget process.

It's clear when we had discussions with the public, with the legislative Finance Committee, that there are a number of ideas about how we could make better decisions or different decisions or encouraging us to make decisions. All of those are part of our budget process, all of which I think include the public, provide the public with information and allow people to make their choices about who is best able to manage our economy and our budgets as we go ahead.

[1550]

C. James: I have to say that the public will be scratching their head at that kind of response when, to use the
[ Page 2750 ]
worst example, the HST was not even talked about with the public. There's nothing open and transparent about the HST. There's nothing open and transparent about a government that said they weren't going to do something and turned around and did it, that said they were going to have a deficit of $495 million and ended up in the billions. There is nothing transparent about that. I think the public really will be wondering at that kind of response.

But just to take the Premier back again. On May 7, or thereabouts, the Premier has told us that his deputy told him that there were revenue pressures, that revenues were falling. When the Premier was asked in September about revenue falling, he said: "I didn't know that. Did you know that? I did not know that. I was not aware of the impact in terms of revenue."

My question, again, is to the Premier. He had a call on May 7. He did not acknowledge that call in September, when he was asked this question. In fact, it took a few weeks before he finally admitted it. Why did it take the Premier so long to be upfront about the briefing he received from his deputy?

Hon. G. Campbell: I've tried to relay what I knew and when I knew it, to the best of my ability. This was a manageable situation that we had. I believed that we could meet our budget projections of February 14 with a deficit of $495 million. I believed that because I was led to believe that.

[1555]

I think it was correct in terms of what took place between the time in May and later. There were a number of things that took place that I couldn't predict in May and that I didn't predict in May.

I don't have the entire conversation that the Leader of the Opposition is referring to, but my recollection of that conversation, as I said, had very similar comments to what I've had today.

C. James: Just to close off on this section before we move on to the information the Premier had between the budget and the election, to ask the Premier again, then. He received information in May from his deputy. He was told that revenues were plummeting, that there were revenue pressures. He was asked in September, and he said he didn't know — that he didn't know that and he was not aware of the impact in terms of revenue — even though he'd received information in May.

Again, just to ask the Premier: why didn't he tell either the public or the press, when he was asked, that he in fact had received a briefing in May and had been told that revenues were pressured?

Hon. G. Campbell: I've tried to relay this as well as I can. From what I was informed, revenues were taking a 0.5 percent reduction. Those were manageable within the context of the budget that we'd set. That's what I knew at the time. That's what I said at the time. I've done the best I can to relay what I knew and when I knew it in the best way that I could. The bottom line wasn't changing. We were expecting to be able to meet the revenue targets that we'd set in the February budget in May.

C. James: I want to take a little bit of time now to go backwards in time, to be able to take a look at how the Premier was dealing with news that he received from the February budget until the election time period.

We've now confirmed that the Premier was told that revenues were plummeting in May by his deputy and that he didn't release that information until September. Now let's take a look at some of the forecasts and revisions that were being made during the time the budget was being formed and the election time period.

Some of these are public statements that came from forecasters, and some of these have come through freedom-of-information documents. I'll just start off with the first one for the Premier.

On February 3 Helmut Pastrick of Central 1 Credit Union stated, in communications with the Ministry of Finance: "If I could, I would lower my 2009 forecast. I am now at negative 1.5 percent real GDP. I trust the forecast allowance and contingency reserve are large."

So my question is to the Premier. You've now received information — it came in from Helmut Pastrick — that said you should have a large contingency allowance. Could the Premier tell us why there was not a large forecast allowance and contingency reserve in the February budget as recommended by Helmut Pastrick?

[1600]

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm glad to try and highlight this for the leader. I note that the Finance estimates have just concluded, so I imagine this was canvassed at that time, but let me try and do as good a job as I can for this.

We have a forecast council that's made up of 12 independent forecasters that comes forward with its recommendations. In February of this year the forecast council made a recommendation that their belief was that we'd have zero percent economic growth through the year. It was identified at that time by the Minister of Finance that we were being far more conservative than that. We projected for the February budget a 0.9 percent reduction in our forecasts.

I'll get this confirmed, but I believe that we have the forecast council come and meet and go through their forecasts sometime in December and then again sometime in September so that we can see how we're doing and how we're tracking in terms of our budgets. It may be more often than that, but those are the two times that I recall.

As one of them said, some of them are right some of the time, and most of them are wrong some of the time. No one has it dead right. That's why we have 12 independent forecasters that come together.
[ Page 2751 ]

We average those forecasts, and typically, this government has been on the conservative side of that. In February we were particularly conservative by saying that we expected that our economic growth would be minus 0.9 percent, as opposed to flat. We felt that provided some cushion for us as we went through the year. At that time, again, I can tell you that not just rating agencies but a number of commentators said that it was a conservative budget and that it was a sensible budget for us to move forward with.

The information that the Leader of the Opposition is referring to is information that was available to her as she put forward her proposed budget for this year. Her proposed budget actually was based on ours, so she obviously felt we'd made sensible forecasts as well, basing on the forecast council that we had.

C. James: It's just interesting that the Premier mentions our election platform. In fact, we had predicted a larger deficit, a longer period of time, more revenue coming in, because we felt the situation was going to be much worse than the Premier was predicting and worse than he was telling the public. But many of these documents are in fact documents that we received through freedom of information, so they weren't public documents but were documents coming to government.

I think it's important to walk through these, because the Premier has said that he was looking at the economy. He was looking at the challenges in the economy — that it was his primary concern, that he as Premier was taking on that issue as a primary concern.

Just to read, again, another FOI document to the Premier that was received on February 6, which was 11 days before budget day. Robert Hogue of RBC e-mailed with a plea to change their forecast. He said: "Is it too late to submit a revised forecast? This morning's awful labour force survey numbers have changed the picture. We could do a quick update. We could send in a new table by the end of today. The outlook is increasingly dismal for B.C., unfortunately."

My question is to the Premier: what did you do when you received RBC's concern around downgrading their prediction?

[1605]

Hon. G. Campbell: I don't know if that letter was written to me or to the Minister of Finance. Typically, the forecast council deals directly with the Minister of Finance, not through the Premier or the Premier's office.

I know that the budget was set for February 17. It was probably out being printed at that time. I don't know all of the vicissitudes of that, but that's why they have Finance Ministry estimates. That would have been the time to discuss that. I'm sure that they did canvass those items under the Finance Ministry, which is the appropriate place for them to be discussed.

C. James: Yes, I'm sure the questions were asked in the Ministry of Finance. I believe it's important to ask the Premier what knowledge he had. As we know and as the Premier made in his statement, he is responsible for the economy, the budget that the government prepares and the impact that it has on the economy, so it is important for the public to know what knowledge the Premier had.

It also goes, again, to the questions we're asking around credibility, around what the Premier knew when, about what information was shared with the public. I believe that's part of the Premier's duty and responsibility when it comes to openness and transparency — to share that information with the public.

I'd ask the Premier, then: with this information coming in, with a change in RBC's forecast, did the Finance Minister share that information with the Premier? Did you have discussions about the ever-changing forecasts?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think that it is important. The Leader of the Opposition has asked what I knew. What I knew was that our forecast council had reported. What I knew was that we were actually being very conservative in terms of what the world looked like in February of 2009.

What I know since is that in fact, when that budget was put out, it received good reviews as being prudent and thoughtful in terms of what we were doing; where our additional expenditures were going — to health care and to education; where we thought we could do well in terms of managing our costs in terms of the discretionary spending.

I think it is important to note that these discussions and decisions are made by the Minister of Finance. In fact, they are signed off by the Deputy Minister of Finance to sort of reiterate the fact that we want to be sure that this has a professional eye in terms of the public. They should know that that's done.

The budget was presented to the public on February 17 to fairly significant reviews — not that there weren't people that said things were going to be worse. There were some people that said they were going to be better. On average, the forecast council said they expected zero. We projected for our budget a reduction in our economic growth by 0.9 percent.

I thought that was conservative, and we were very upfront and transparent about letting the public know that. I think that is why we had the kind of positive response to our budget that we did. It's likely one of the reasons why the opposition felt they could use our budget, which they called a fiscally prudent foundation, to build their budget on.

[1610]

C. James: I want to come back again to what the Premier knew. I understand that the budget is signed off
[ Page 2752 ]
and the forecasts are signed off by the deputy and the Finance Minister. I understand that, but this was a difficult economic time in British Columbia. The Premier was, I'm certain, involved in taking a look at the budget numbers, taking a look at the forecasts. This was a budget that was coming forward before an election campaign. I would imagine that the Premier would have been directly involved.

It wasn't simply one forecaster who was coming in, before the budget was finalized, with changes in their predictions. In fact, there were a number of forecasters who were bringing forward changes.

Just to let the Premier know another one. On February 10 — again, this was before the budget was finalized — a senior economist with CIBC World Markets wrote, again to say that they requested to revise a section of the budget. I'll read it:

"Clearly, things are moving quickly in the wrong direction. While we can still see B.C. moving ahead, the weaker Canadian outlook includes a softer outlook for British Columbia in the coming year. We're shocked by the recent scale of job losses, the steep housing start drops in the province. We'll be lowering our B.C. forecast as a result.

"We haven't put anything in print, but we want to let you know that it's going to drop. If it's not too late, please change our forecast as described."

I understand, as the Premier said, that these forecasts went to the Finance Minister and that the Finance Minister took a look at them. But my question is: during this difficult economic time and the preparation of such a critical budget for our province — and, for the Premier, going forward in an election — was the Premier informed by the Finance Minister of these changes that were occurring in the forecast through these e-mails that were coming in?

Hon. G. Campbell: I've tried to answer this in the best way that I can. I was aware of the fact that we had a forecast council. I'm not the person that is involved with dealing directly with the forecast council.

I don't think either the opposition leader or myself didn't understand that we were facing a difficult and challenging economic time in 2009. We both did that.

In our budget we projected a reduction of 0.9 percent of our economic growth compared to what the forecast council had said, on average, across all 12. I do think it's important to note that our February budget was generally perceived to be relatively conservative in terms of those things. I actually operated on that with the….

The Finance Minister set his budget. We knew we were facing challenging economic times. That's exactly why, in the budget, we had to be clear with people and transparent that we were expecting we were going to have to face about $1.9 billion of discretionary savings if we were going to protect health care and public education funding as we went ahead. That's what the budget reflected.

I think it is important to note that the economic forecasters and our projections, obviously, for February were wrong. Sometimes they go down, and sometimes they go up. When they're going up quickly, you're generally looking back and saying, "Well, we didn't meet that" — right? I think everyone would look back at the year and say: "Gee, we wish we knew everything we know in November of 2009 in January or February of 2009."

The preparation of the budget is a challenging program to go through, as anyone who's been in government would tell you. It is prepared. Many difficult decisions have to be made by the Ministry of Finance and the Minister of Finance. It is then put forward to the public. All of the forecast allowances were clear there for the public to see.

Then we proceeded to make our choices. We chose to be more conservative than the average of the forecast council would have suggested. I can't speak to the specific letters that the opposition leader is referring to, but again, that's why we do have Finance estimates. That's why the Minister of Finance is available — to make sure that he can answer those questions. I'm not in a position where I can.

[1615]

What I knew was that we were actually being far more conservative than the economic forecasters were. What I knew was that we had to make some challenging decisions as we went forward if we were going to protect health care and education funding, and that's what our budget reflected.

C. James: Just so I'm clear. This isn't talking about the forecast council — to the Premier. These were changes that were being recommended to predictions that had already been put in by the forecast council. These were CIBC, RBC, BMO and Central Credit Union, which had all asked to downgrade their predictions.

I understand that the Minister of Finance would receive these and that the Minister of Finance would deal with these when it came to the budget, but my question is to the Premier, because I think it's fairly important. People expect and, particularly with this Premier, they understand that he's directly involved in decisions that are made by government.

Did the Premier not have discussions, and was he not aware that many of the members of the forecast council were in fact downgrading their predictions before the budget was tabled?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'll just reiterate to you, hon. Chair. These would have been preferable discussions to have in the Finance Ministry estimates. This was not covered in the Finance Ministry estimates, and I think it would have been far more informative to everyone had that taken place.

Let me say this. On December 4, I understand that the forecast council met. They discussed the economic situation in December. They were given a deadline by which
[ Page 2753 ]
they had to have their forecasts in so that we could finalize our budget numbers.

Three forecasters evidently came in after the budget that asked if they were able to change their numbers. Those numbers would not have changed our estimate, which was the largest single reduction in terms of forecasts that we'd had. We were projecting, as I had mentioned, a minus 0.9 percent economic growth, whereas the average had been zero. It was the largest measure of prudence that we'd ever had in the province because we recognized the volatility.

In January of 2009, I had been quite explicit with people that there were significant revenue hits that we had already taken when we announced that we were going to have to put ourselves in a position where we had to go into a deficit. We knew there was volatility. We knew there were changes. The forecast council knew the deadline date, and we set our budget following the deadline date having been met with a level of prudence that far exceeded what had been there in the past to reflect the world we lived in, in February of 2009.

The Chair: Before I recognize the Leader of the Opposition, I wanted to remind her that under Standing Order 61, debate in Committee of Supply must be strictly relevant to the items under consideration.

[1620]

With respect to Vote 10, the Premier's estimates currently before the committee, it has been the practice of this committee to allow some latitude in debate on governmentwide policy and administration, but debate will not be allowed to canvass details associated with other ministries.

Leader of the Opposition, continue.

C. James: I appreciate the Premier providing the detail, but in fact, it wasn't the detail in my question, hon. Chair. The question was around what the Premier knew and how he was involved in these discussions — not the details around the budget, not the details around the forecast council. I understand that those are details that are dealt with in the Finance Ministry by the Minister of Finance and the Deputy Minister of Finance.

My question to the Premier was: did he have discussions with the Finance Minister about the fact that there were changes being sent in, before the budget was tabled, to downgrade the forecasts?

Hon. G. Campbell: I tried to answer that question before. I pointed out that I was aware of the fact that we were in a volatile economic time. I was aware of the fact that the forecast council had come forward and said that they were suggesting zeros.

The Finance Minister was not explaining to me the correspondence that he was having leading right up to the budget. The budget was set in an orderly, thoughtful and deliberate manner, including the forecast council. That was all very transparent when the budget was presented.

Again, I would say that the comments we received on the budget were that it was a responsible and conservative budget. It provided for a smooth transition from the recession to better economic times. It was a realistic budget for tough times. It was a responsible approach to dealing with a very difficult situation. Those were the sorts of comments that we received from people who looked at our budget subsequent to it being brought in.

There was a very conservative minus 0.9 percent forecast that was in place. That was very conservative in February. I'm the first to admit that it's not necessarily very conservative in November, when we know what we know today. When we knew what we knew then, it was conservative.

I knew there was a range of opinions from the forecast councillors. There always are. I was not informed directly that one or two might have wanted to change their positions after the deadline. I was aware that we were, in fact, still more conservative with our projected forecasts than the forecast council was — significantly more conservative.

I think the really important part of this was that those assumptions were there. The situation taking place in the world was there for all of us to see. We can all read economic reports, and we can all see the different banking institution reports or investment institution reports. The opposition, I'm sure, does that kind of homework, as we do as a government.

The opposition felt that we had prepared a responsible budget. They used that responsible budget as the foundation for their budget. The difference was that they actually were far more optimistic, suggesting that they could generate $600 million of additional revenues, and were far more, if you want to call it, optimistic in the savings they could find in government. They thought they could find over a billion dollars more in savings in the government.

Now, I'd love to hear what they think we should do that would add that billion dollars. We've been very rigorous in looking at our budgets as we came to September.

I also think it's important to note that our budget actually increases spending this year. In spite of the economically challenging times, it increases spending. It increases spending on health care, education, income supports, forest fire fighting, H1N1 flu. Overall, it is an expense-increasing budget, not a reduction budget.

It is something, I think, that was important as we went through the February budget period — to decide what's a reasonable forecast, given what we know today, and what are reasonable expenditures, given what we know today. That resulted in a $495 million deficit.

As much as I would not have liked to go to deficit, we felt we had to go to deficit, because of the rapid change
[ Page 2754 ]
that was taking place in our economy, if we were going to protect vital public services.

C. James: I want to talk about that rapid change that was occurring. The Premier has now said that no, he didn't know or wasn't aware or didn't have the information shared with him that there were changes occurring to the forecasters' estimates, the predictions — that those were being downgraded. The Premier says that he wasn't aware of that.

I just want to read, for the Premier, another economist. Scotiabank economist Mary Webb made a point that I think is very important, and I want to talk to the Premier about this information.

[1625]

Ms. Webb sent in an e-mail that said that "a number of participants since early January have revised down their forecasts again, underlying the current high level of risk. I think it's important that you acknowledge the further downward slide in the current environment."

My question is to the Premier. Did he not feel it was important, when he spoke to the budget, as he did often after the budget was delivered, to acknowledge that downward slide so the public was aware of the kind of situation we were facing economically?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, let me take the Leader of the Opposition through this. We do have a forecast council that did meet on December 12. Actually, unlike in the past, they were provided with additional time to actually survey what they thought and provide the ministry with their ideas.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

We did reflect the fact that it was a very volatile time in terms of the economy. That resulted in a minus 0.9 percent estimate in our budget of February with regard to economic growth. I'm informed by the Minister of Finance that had he taken in all the changes that were suggested, you still would not have had an average that did not provide for a substantial degree of prudence when you look at minus 0.9 percent of economic growth.

C. James: Now moving on to the budget being tabled. As we know, the budget was tabled, and the Premier put forward the claim of a $495 million deficit — was very clear about that number. But on the very day the budget was tabled, we saw that BMO once again downgraded its forecasts.

My question would be: did that downgrading forecast, which was public and came out on the day of the budget, cause the Premier concern about his number of $495 million?

[1630]

Hon. G. Campbell: First of all, I believed that the $495 million deficit was attainable, as I've mentioned as we've gone through these discussions so far today. Secondly, we had a substantial amount of prudence built into our budget, because we expected that there would be some challenges in place.

Was I concerned about the economy in February? Of course I was concerned about the economy in February. I've been concerned about the economy far prior to February, and I'm sure we'll all be concerned about the economy for some months to come.

Having said that, we built in a significant amount of prudence to assure that we could get through this as well as we could while we protected our health funding, our education funding and that we had some resources for other critical services of government and front-line services of government.

C. James: According to the Premier's calendar, there was a meeting with the Finance Minister on February 24. Now, the Premier said previously that he hadn't discussed the changes that economists were putting in, the downward slide, the downgrading of their predictions. Did the Premier on February 24, a date that was in his calendar, discuss the downward slide? Did he discuss those changes in forecast with the Finance Minister?

Hon. G. Campbell: Yes, we did discuss what was taking place in the economy on February 24. We recognized that there were pressures in the economy. We were actually confident, with regard to the forecast allowance that we had been set, that that was still going to be achievable. We recognized that we had to take a number of steps, which were identified in the budget, with regard to discretionary spending.

In the meeting of February 24, we discussed a whole range of issues. Most importantly, we felt that our budget was something that could be achieved, and we were going to have to get on with that.

C. James: Did the Premier and the Finance Minister discuss specifics that would have to change based on these new forecast numbers?

Hon. G. Campbell: We did have a meeting. We did discuss what was taking place with regard to the budget. I did not get specifics about different forecasts, different forecasters or different approaches that had been taken by different economists. We were confident in the framework that had been established in the budget, including the minus 0.9 percent in terms of the economic front.

We were confident that we had been conservative in that estimate. We were aware or cognizant of the fact that we had to get on with finding the $1.9 billion of discretionary expenditures, but we were confident in the framework of the budget that had been set.
[ Page 2755 ]

C. James: Just continuing on with the Premier's calendar, the Premier met the Prime Minister in Vancouver on February 26, according to the Premier's calendar. Was there discussion of B.C.'s economy at that meeting?

[1635]

Hon. G. Campbell: I think the Leader of the Opposition is referring to a meeting with the Prime Minister on February 26. At that time I'm sure we talked about the federal budget, which had called on provinces to match the federal stimulus spending.

We were fast off the mark with regard to that. We'd called for an accelerated capital program in October. We had encouraged the federal government to provide for that kind of a program. We were supportive of the federal government's program at the time, and I wanted to be sure that we were not letting anything get in the way of those investments flowing as rapidly as they could.

I don't recall the details of the meeting or the agenda for the meeting other than to say that we were looking to try and maximize the benefits of federal investments in British Columbia by partnering with British Columbia in a number of ways that would ensure that we got as much money on the ground to create as many jobs as possible in as many communities across the province as we could.

C. James: Was the HST discussed at that meeting with the Prime Minister?

Hon. G. Campbell: No.

C. James: Just continuing on in the timeline, this is post-budget. The budget has now been tabled. The Premier has put forward a budget with $495 million, and the forecasts continue to be downgraded. We saw on February 27 that in their weekly briefing, the Central 1 Credit Union came out to say that it was another week of uniformly negative economic indicators, no floor to the unfolding recession in sight.

According to the Premier's calendar, he had two meetings on Saturday, February 28, at the Premier's Vancouver office — one with the Finance Minister at 11 followed by another meeting that happened at 2:30. I'd like to ask the Premier whether the deteriorating economy and the budget came up at either of those meetings.

[1640]

Hon. G. Campbell: I am racking my brain. I am seeing if I can discover exactly what was discussed on February 28, but I don't recall. I could speculate on what it may have been about with the Finance Minister. February 28 is getting close to year-end. It would not be unusual for us to discuss what was happening as we went towards year-end, and it wouldn't have been unusual for us to discuss how we could maximize the benefits of the federal investments that were coming out of the federal budget.

I actually don't recall. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition could tell me what the times were. She has the morning and the afternoon. I don't recall.

C. James: Perhaps I can ask the Premier to bring the information back tomorrow. We have a continuation of estimates tomorrow. Perhaps I can ask for more specifics tomorrow. The times are 11 a.m. on Saturday, February 28, and 2:30 p.m. on February 28. I'm asking a question around whether the economy and finances were discussed at those meetings.

To continue on, we're now moving to March. We're getting closer to the election time period. We've continued to see numbers being downgraded. RBC predicted, again, growth rate downgraded by half a point than the number the government used in their budget.

RBC predicted a GDP decline of 1.5 percent for 2009 and said in their report that the swiftness with which the housing market, the labour market, consumer spending and capital investments have deteriorated had thwarted prospects that the onset of a global recovery later this year might help us in the short term in this province.

This is now at March 15. We're now halfway between budget and the start of the election. I'd like to ask the Premier: did he now, in taking a look at these downgradings, have discussions around his $495 million deficit number, and was he concerned about the number in the face of these downgrades?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think it's important to note the difference between calendar years and fiscal years. In fact, many people thought that we were not going to be able to secure a balanced budget for the fiscal year of 2008, which ended on March 31, 2009. We were able to not just have a balanced budget, but we actually generated a surplus that was over 40 percent higher than we had projected.

Most forecasters were saying, well into the year, that although we would have a challenging time, since the first quarter of 2010 is part of the 2009 budget, because of the economic stimulus that would come from the Olympics, they expected us to do better than many other parts of the country.

We were still confident — in spite of the fact, as I said time and again, that we would have to make difficult decisions — that the projected deficit for the 2009-10 fiscal year would be achievable.

[1645]

C. James: I understand the Premier saying the numbers that he had received…. He was feeling that it was still doable when he looked at the numbers. But it wasn't simply one forecaster. It wasn't simply one forecast that was being downgraded. These were the months
[ Page 2756 ]
of February, March, April, where you continued to see numbers coming in that showed that the economy was much worse than the budget that had been put in place.

I want to read to the Premier another piece of information that came in just before the election campaign. Again, this comes back to the $495 million deficit number that the Premier was very clear about — just to remind the Premier of his infamous claim in which the deficit would be "$495 million maximum."

It wasn't that the Premier gave room for discussion around more difficult economic times. The Premier was emphatic about the deficit number and about the fact that that number would be there. We saw the Conference Board continue to come in, bringing changes forward.

The Premier said earlier that he hadn't discussed the changes in forecasts with the Finance Minister. Now that he'd received the BMO change, now that he'd received the Conference Board change, now that we're getting close to the beginning of April and going into an election campaign, when the public expects that the Premier is upfront about what's going on in the economy, could the Premier tell me what conversations he had in April, in those two weeks leading into the election, with the Finance Minister around the downgrades, around the risk of the $495 million deficit?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think that the important thing here, again, is to get the differentiation or the distinction between a calendar year and a fiscal year. If you look at the calendar year for 2009-10, you will see that it includes from April 1 of 2009 until December 31. The fiscal year goes all the way to March 31.

The reason that's important is because the first quarter of 2010 is recognized, I think universally, as a time when we are going to have significant additional economic benefits that are going to come to the province. We felt that we had a prudent budget forecast in place and, in fact, I think that many economists did as well.

If you look at the budget document on page 111, in terms of the overall budget document, you'll see that economists look at a challenging 2009 and a far more hopeful 2010. Those budgets will change. I'm sure those projections will change over time, but to give an example to the Leader of the Opposition, we are projecting a 1.9 percent increase in economic growth. The Conference Board is projecting 4.2 percent.

[1650]

It would be neither prudent nor wise for us to say: "Well, we're going to go to 4.2 percent." That's why we go to a whole series of forecasters. There will be a range of forecasts. They are identified in the budget document so that we can see it.

As we set our financial framework in place, we set that in a way that is deliberately prudent, that provides for some flexibility and that may call on us, as the budget in 2009 did, to make some significant and difficult decisions. It does call on us to do that. We felt that we were able at that time to meet that framework — that economic and financial framework that we put in place in February. We felt that way through most of the spring and, as I said earlier in this discussion, right through the election.

C. James: I'll lay the statement out. Would the Premier agree that the economic situation changed drastically between February and April?

Hon. G. Campbell: There is no question that we were facing challenging economic times, changing economic times. That's why we had a forecast that was the largest ever area of prudence that we'd provided into a budget in terms of our forecasts. That's why we were spending as much time as we were, dealing with the potential to restrict spending in areas of discretionary spending. It's why the public service was working so hard to try and make sure that we could manage those things.

It's why we continue to do that. We remain in challenging economic times. I think it's why, again, when outsiders looked at our budget, they said we had a conservative, prudent budget. We actually worked very hard to try and make sure that we could meet those targets and felt, indeed, that we could meet those targets — not just up to the election but right through the election.

Having said that, I recognize that other people could take a different approach. I think the most noteworthy thing in terms of this discussion is that if the Leader of the Opposition was aware of all of those challenges that we faced and felt that we weren't reflecting them appropriately in our budget, then surely she could have reflected them appropriately in her budget, which was two months after the budget in February.

Had she done so, she probably wouldn't have added $600 million in revenue from what our government budget was. I would imagine she wouldn't have suggested that they couldn't save even more money in terms of discretionary spending than we did in terms of our strategy.

We were open and transparent with regard to what we were facing. We had a strong framework and a conservative framework in place. We felt that we could meet the challenges that we faced in these very volatile economic times, right through the first part of this year.

C. James: I'll remind the Premier again that our budget included a deficit over a longer period of time, because we recognized that the numbers the Premier had put forward were rosy and that we needed more revenue coming in. In fact, we recognized that in our budget.

Just again, back to the numbers for the Premier. The Premier has now admitted that the fiscal sand shifted from February until April, that it was a much more challenging time than the Premier had recognized when the
[ Page 2757 ]
budget was tabled, that economists had downgraded their predictions between February and April, that the world was changing. Yet the Premier continued to be very emphatic about his $495 million deficit maximum, in fact, as he said repeatedly.

[1655]

The Premier did not say that the situation was changing. The Premier did not tell the public that the fiscal situation was worse than it was when he tabled the budget in February.

Again, my question is to the Premier. I used the quote earlier that talked about accountability and openness and the importance of the public being aware of the fiscal situation of the day. Those were the Premier's words. Does the Premier not feel that not being upfront with the public, that not talking about the changes that occurred in the fiscal situation in British Columbia was not being upfront and accountable, as he talked about earlier, with the public?

Hon. G. Campbell: I do think it's important for people to understand the economic framework, the fiscal framework, the financial framework that we have as government, the assumptions we've made as we look to deal with the challenges in front of us. Throughout the year, in fact, as long ago as…. Let me think of the year. In 2008 in September we were talking about the challenges that we were going to face.

There was a first ministers meeting where I went and we talked about the challenges we faced and what we could do together. I had a special television opportunity to explain to the people of British Columbia about the challenges we faced and what we intended to do that we called the ten-point plan.

We had a budget in February. We talked about the challenges we were going to face and created a financial framework that would allow us to deal with those challenges. They did call on us to make some difficult decisions, but they allowed us to deal with those challenges.

Throughout that time I think it's important to note that I believed, and I believe the government believed, that we actually had a financial framework that would allow us to deal with the challenges we were being confronted with. We continued to believe that for a number of months throughout 2009.

Again, I would say that the opposition believed that we had dealt with them appropriately. Had they not believed we were dealing with them appropriately — in view of all the information that was available from the Conference Board, from different financial institutions, from different economists who were pointing out we were in difficult times, as we had said for months — then they would not have used the budget numbers and the assumptions that we made as they prepared their budget.

I recognize that the Leader of the Opposition suggested it would take longer to take care of the deficits that they were projecting. She also projected that the opposition would actually find an additional $1.2 billion in savings in a challenging economic time. They also, for some reason, in spite of the fact that we were expecting our economy to falter through the year — according to our projections, a minus 0.9 percent economic growth…. Somehow or other they were going to discover how they were going to get an additional $600 million of revenue.

I'm glad for the opposition to come forward and say, "Here's our plan," which was different than ours. That's great. That's what the election should be about. We were both living in the same world. We were both having to deal with the same sets of changes. We both laid out what our assumptions were, and we said that we felt that ours was going to be able to manage the deficits that we faced, according to the numbers that we'd set out, which was $495 million as a deficit.

[1700]

I said throughout the campaign that that would require difficult decisions. I said throughout the campaign that we had identified $1.9 billion in savings that we were going to have to find. I continue to recognize that that is a challenge we face in terms of our budget.

I think that I always did the best job and always have done the best job I can to explain where we are. We believed that our fiscal framework was not just manageable, but it was something that we could accomplish.

I just should, if I may, bring back some information to the Leader of the Opposition that she asked for earlier that I didn't have a recollection of. In the February 28 meetings we discussed the Olympic village and the status of that, and we discussed the recognition and reconciliation act and the work that was being done on that as we developed the concept paper.

C. James: While the Premier has given his explanation, I have to say that I don't think anyone in the public would take that kind of information as believable when they know that the information that the Premier had — and he's now admitted that he had — on May 7, where he was told that revenues were plummeting, that that information wasn't shared with the public.

As I said, that flies in the face of the quotes I used earlier, where the Premier talks about openness and accountability and the importance of the public knowing the fiscal situation in British Columbia.

I want to move on now to the February 14 finance meeting. This is the meeting post-election about which the Premier, again, in September finally admitted that he received a briefing on revenue pressures and that there had been a meeting on May 14 in which the Deputy Minister of Finance briefed both the Finance Minister and the Premier. So could the Premier please tell us who attended that meeting?
[ Page 2758 ]

Hon. G. Campbell: Just so we're clear what we're talking about, there was a meeting on May 14, not February 14. So May 14 — my recollection was that I had a meeting with my deputy, the deputy of Finance and the then Minister of Finance.

C. James: Could the Premier tell us who gave that briefing and what was discussed at the briefing?

[1705]

Hon. G. Campbell: The meeting I had on May 14, frankly, was a relatively casual meeting. It was two days after the election. The presentation was given to me by the Deputy Minister of Finance with regard to some of the revenue challenges that we faced. It was really done on the basis of work that was prepared by the Ministry of Finance for the incoming government, regardless of who the party was.

C. James: Just to ask more specifics, then, around the information that the Premier says was presented. Were new budget numbers presented to the Premier, and what was the impact on the government's deficit?

Hon. G. Campbell: There are two things that I would say. The first is that I think we have to remember that these were forecasts. It was not hard data. They were forecasts that there were going to be some additional hits to revenues. My direction coming out of that meeting was: "Go and find out how we're going to meet our budget targets of $495 million."

C. James: The Premier told us earlier in our discussion that on May 7, when he had his discussion with his former deputy minister, that she informed him about the revenue pressures. The Premier used the number $200 million to $300 million off — that he felt that was doable. Did the Premier receive new numbers on May 14, and what were those numbers?

[1710]

Hon. G. Campbell: The revenue projections were the first detailed revenue projections that had been run through the programs that we have in the previous number of months, and in fact, there was a considerable challenge, in terms of revenues, that was identified.

I said at the time that our goal was to come in as close as we could to the $495 million. I wanted to know the ways that we could actually achieve that. It was a relatively rapid meeting. We didn't go through all the policy alternatives. That was something we sent off to look at. We knew that there were significant additional revenue pressures, and the Finance Minister and his ministry were set to come back with suggestions for how we could meet the budget targets that we had set.

C. James: I'll use the Premier's quote, and he mentioned it as well. The quote that the Premier said came out of that meeting is: "We have a budget we're trying to meet. We'd better go back and try and find areas where we can act and what we can do and how we can meet the February budget." The Premier must have based that on some information other than just that revenues were challenging.

He said that on May 7 he was told $200 million to $300 million was the challenge. What was the number on May 14 that the Premier was told was going to be a challenge to British Columbia?

[1715]

Hon. G. Campbell: During that meeting was the first time that I heard that the projected, forecast, deficit was going to be probably in excess of a billion dollars — between $1.1 billion, I think, and $1.3 billion — if we didn't do anything else. At that time, I gave direction to the Ministry of Finance to find ways that we could close that gap and get down to a $495 million deficit.

C. James: The Premier must have been shocked at the number — from $200 million to $300 million on May 7 to a billion dollars on May 14. Why did the Premier not inform the public of these revenues tanking?

Hon. G. Campbell: First, I want to say that the Leader of the Opposition is correct. I was very concerned about getting those numbers. I actually said to them: "Why am I getting these numbers now?"

The reason was quite straightforward. They didn't run the numbers until election day. They ran the numbers on election day so that they would be prepared with a full array of information for whoever was the incoming government.

It would not have been appropriate for me, actually, to suggest to the staff that they should take additional measures prior to an election. It was appropriate for them to prepare that for us and to provide us with it.

Having said that, it is still about 2 percent to 3 percent of our overall budget. In a $40 billion budget, that would be a 2 percent or 3 percent savings. So the direction to say to people, "Go and see how we can manage this," I would suggest, was a legitimate direction in view of the fact that we said to people that we expected to have a $495 million deficit.

In generating that deficit, we expected that deficit to allow us to protect health care funding and education funding as we moved through a very challenging economic time.

C. James: Surely, in hindsight, the Premier — when he looks back and sees that it was $200 million to $300 million on his May 7 call with his former deputy and goes to $1.1 billion to $1.3 billion on May 14, just a week later — perhaps might have asked some questions. Does
[ Page 2759 ]
he not think it might have been important to ask some questions on May 7 about the numbers and the kind of concern that might have been there around revenue?

[1720]

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, you know, no one's trying to suggest that these weren't significant challenges that were in front of us. I actually don't think it's possible for people to see very far into the future. I've got a lot of confidence in the people that develop our financial modelling and provide it to us. They don't run it every day, and they don't run it every time there's a change in a forecast or a change in our circumstances.

It was fully run on May 12. It was presented to us on May 12. What we had discovered as we'd gone through the work to try and find ways that we could, first, not have a deficit in the beginning of 2009 and then minimize the deficit in 2009…. We found that we actually were outperforming in a number of areas that we thought we could continue to do.

When I heard the challenging number with regard to revenues, I said: "Well, what do we have to match against that? What are the policy decisions we can make that would allow us to do it?" I did not go back and candidly say to them: "Why didn't you predict what's happened in the world when no one else did?"

The fact of the matter is that our Finance officials have done an excellent job. Our public service does an excellent job of providing us with the best information they can, and we do the best we can to make decisions based on that information and make that information available to the public.

C. James: The Premier mentioned that this was the first full run of numbers. Could the Premier tell me: what was the previous date where a full run of numbers was done?

Hon. G. Campbell: I can't give you the specific date, but it was done in advance of February budget.

C. James: Again, I have to express concerns, not simply from this side of the Legislature but on behalf of the public, for a constant watch that needed to be there around how things were going economically.

I come back again to the Premier's comments, and he mentioned them again. "You need to go back and try and find areas where we can act, what we can do to meet the February budget." That's a huge gap — when you've gone from $200 million to $300 million on May 7 to $1.1 billion to $1.3 billion on May 14, as the Premier says.

I'd like to ask specifics, then. The Premier, I'm sure, in that briefing on May 14 must have had discussions about areas when you're looking at that kind of gap. What kind of suggestions did the Premier make on areas to act, as he says, to address this kind of gap in revenue?

[1725]

Hon. G. Campbell: At that point, we took a number of steps on top of the steps that we had already identified in February. We froze all access to contingencies. We said that there would not be any approval of any non-statutory grants until we had sorted out where we were going. The Deputy Minister to the Premier convened a meeting of the Deputy Ministers Council to look for other measures that may be possible to close the gap, and we asked for a report back by the end of May.

C. James: Can the Premier tell me whether the HST was discussed at the May 14 meeting?

Hon. G. Campbell: No, it was not.

C. James: Could the Premier tell me…? He mentioned that the last full run of numbers, as he describes it, was done in preparation for the February budget. What is the routine run of numbers? How often is this routinely done, and did the Premier feel it would have been important to ask for a full run of numbers when we were seeing the kinds of changes in forecast allowances that were coming in?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, this is the kind of detail question that…. It would be, I think, preferable to have that at the Finance Ministry estimates. It was evidently not canvassed at all.

Having said that, there is a detailed budget done for the first quarterly report, for the second quarterly report and for the third quarterly report in concert with the preparation of the budget that takes place in February of the following year.

C. James: These questions pertain to information that the Premier has shared that he had in his May 14 briefing, which is why I'm doing a follow-up on these questions. The Premier was the one who raised the run of numbers and the importance of that when it came to looking at the new revenue numbers of $1.1 billion to $1.3 billion, as he acknowledges.

Just a question around the May 7 call when the Premier was told, as he said, that $200 million to $300 million was the pressure at that point. Did the Premier ask his deputy about whether a full run of numbers had been done and whether these were updated budget numbers that she was sharing with the Premier?

[1730]

Hon. G. Campbell: First, let me just reiterate. I know that I had a conversation in May. I'm not sure of the specific date. The Leader of the Opposition keeps referring to a specific date. I'm not sure it was that date. I want to be clear about that.

Secondly, in terms of: did I direct them to run the numbers? No, I didn't. In fact, I don't believe it would
[ Page 2760 ]
have been appropriate for me to do that at that time. Those numbers, had they been run, would have been made available to either the Leader of the Opposition or myself following the election. That was appropriate. It's the professional staff who decide when they're going to run those in an interregnum period. It's not the politicians who pick the time.

The other thing I would just say is that it kind of sounds like, when I hear the conversation, that someone goes in and types out some numbers, and we run it. This is not a simple process. It takes a lot of work from Finance officials to put these forecasts together. They have to go to a whole array of indicators throughout the economy.

As I mentioned, in May I was informed that we had revenue pressures and that those revenue pressures were manageable. When the final detailed numbers were run and presented to me on May 14, it was clear that we had some significant challenges with regard to revenues. The direction I gave was to ask for those people who were involved to get out there, to get involved in looking at where we could find some alternatives that would allow us to actually meet our budget targets for February.

The Chair: I'd like to remind members about the issue, about relevancy, and to ensure that the debate is around the Premier's estimates and not other ministers.

C. James: Continuing on with the May 14 meeting. This is from the Premier's calendar. This is a meeting in the Premier's calendar, so directly related to his office.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Again, I want to touch just on.... The Premier mentions the people who work in the Ministry of Finance and the civil servants. Again, I want to say that these questions are not related to the civil servants. These questions are related directly to the Premier and information that the Premier was receiving and whether he shared it or didn't share it with the public. That's very critical in all of this, and that's why the questions are being asked.

The public has a right to know what information the Premier was receiving, what information was being shared with the public, how aware the Premier was of the difficult economic times that were coming up, and why the public wasn't informed.

To come back to the May 14 meeting. It took until September before the Premier admitted that he'd had this briefing on May 14. Could I ask the Premier why?

[1735]

Hon. G. Campbell: The meeting on May 14 was two days after the election. As I've said as I've gone through this, I was surprised by the revenue projections. I suggested that we go back and look at ways that we could deal with them. I felt that we actually should look at ways that we could deal with them. I wasn't going to jump to conclusions about what was going to happen or wasn't going to happen.

My direction was clearly to try and make sure that we could meet our February budget targets, and the deputy ministers went to work on trying to deal with some of that and say: "Here are some of the options that you deal with."

I do think it's important to note that the budget process is a dynamic process. It's not something that's static. It's not something that happens on one day and is finished the next. It's always a dynamic process, and particularly on May 14, it's based on forecasts of what may happen through the year.

You'll recall, I'm sure, hon. Chair, and I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition will recall, that sometimes even the opposition said that we were not going to be able to balance the budget for the 2008 fiscal year. We were able to balance the budget in the 2008 fiscal year.

We had been clear that we had to meet a number of objectives. We were waiting to get the results of those objectives. Quite candidly, I don't actually have press releases or conferences after every meeting that I have.

No one was in any doubt in the spring of 2009 that we were facing significant fiscal challenges, significant economic challenges. As is often the case, there was some good news and some bad news.

What we were trying to do was put together a budget that we could bring to the House as quickly as possible, that would again reflect the characteristics of prudence and protecting critical services like health care and education. We had to look at what the options were, what the opportunities were, and that work was commenced immediately on May 14.

The Chair: I would caution the member on the repetitiveness of the debate.

C. James: Just continuing on. The Premier says that we recognize it was a difficult economic time. Well, the public knew that better than anyone.

The public was very concerned about the economic times. The public was feeling the impact of the economic times. They were seeing it firsthand. The concern and the reason that the question is important is that the public had a right to know what the economic situation was.

I go back to the Premier's quote, himself, where he said: "The public has a right to know what the bottom line is. The public has a right to know the fiscal update and situation of the province." Those are the Premier's own words.

Again, I would ask the Premier: when he received this information — and I would say it's, again, his information — $200 million to $300 million on and around May 7…. I appreciate that he's not sure of the date. To go to
[ Page 2761 ]
$1.1 billion to $1.3 billion with the pressure on May 14 is a huge number. That's a huge change when it comes to revenue.

Did the Premier not feel it was important to give an economic update to the public after that meeting?

Hon. G. Campbell: First of all, I believe the public should know the information, but I think they need to know complete information. I don't think it would be appropriate — in fact, I think it would be damaging — for partial information to be there.

When a government is elected, and if there has not been a budget, there is a requirement that the budget be placed before the Legislature, the public, within 90 days of the swearing-in of the new cabinet. I knew a budget was going to be prepared. I knew we had part of the information. I was interested in getting all of the information.

We had been clear throughout the election campaign that we intended to put British Columbia in a position where it could come out of this economic downturn in an even stronger position than it was when it went into the economic downturn.

[1740]

We had been clear that we were going to protect health care and education with additional funding, and we'd been clear that we were going to continue to try and deal with the issues in front of us in a financially prudent way that would protect something that British Columbians have earned over the last number of years, which is a triple-A credit rating, which saves them literally millions of dollars a year when we're trying to improve and increase our infrastructure.

There was never a suggestion that we shouldn't provide the public with complete information. We have provided the public with complete information, and I think that's what's important: open, transparent information that meets and allows for public scrutiny of the decisions that a government has made.

C. James: Just to ask the Premier about the specific meeting of May 14. As I mentioned to the Premier earlier, we receive his calendars through FOI. Could the Premier tell me why this May 14 meeting wasn't included on his calendar?

Hon. G. Campbell: As I mentioned earlier, this was a meeting that was actually a casual meeting. I came into the office. The deputy minister suggested to me that the Deputy Minister of Finance was meeting with the Minister of Finance, and she thought it would be worthwhile for me to be there. We don't normally retrospectively do the calendars, as far as I know.

C. James: I can't imagine if, as the Premier says, the May 14 meeting was going to be held with whoever won government to be able to receive an update, that it would be a casual meeting. This was an update on the fiscal situation from the Deputy Finance Minister, as the Premier himself said. I can't imagine receiving the information of $1.3 billion was a casual meeting. I would expect the Premier would see it as more than a casual meeting.

We know from the Premier's calendar in the previous year that there were a number of meetings often marked in the Premier's calendar, meetings that he'd had with the Finance Minister or forecasters or business councils that were often labelled as finance meetings. That was the term that was used in the Premier's calendar between September '08 and March '09.

But since the election — in receiving the calendar, again, through FOI — there are no records of any finance meetings. So could the Premier tell me why, following the election, his calendar doesn't note any finance meetings from the election time on?

The Chair: Hon. Members, the committee will recess until ten minutes to six.

The committee recessed from 5:43 p.m. to 5:53 p.m.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. G. Campbell: With regard to my calendar, regularly scheduled meetings are put in my calendar. Scheduled meetings are in my calendar. I actually can't speak to what it has been in the past. I'm paying attention to my calendar in the future. I do know this: our calendar is made available under freedom of information, and it is full and complete when it's received.

C. James: Well, as I mentioned earlier, in fact, the May 14 wasn't in the calendar. We did receive the calendar, but the May 14 meeting was not in it. Nor were any other finance meetings, right through from the election, in the calendar that we received. There seems to be a gap there.

Just a question around two other comments the Premier made regarding briefings. Again, I'll quote. These are comments that were made in June by the Premier: "One of the problems is that the updates change every day. We've had three different forecasts last week, which have been quite a bit different from the ones we had this week. The updates change every day. It's better this week than it might have been two weeks ago."

The Premier is talking in these quotes about updates that he's receiving. Could the Premier please tell me who presented him with these updates and forecasts that he was talking about in June?

[1755]

Hon. G. Campbell: My recollection of that discussion was about forecasters coming forward with new updates,
[ Page 2762 ]
not with our forecast. Forecasters. Different forecasters do updates. They do reports. They do whatever they do. They answer questions to people in the public with regard to what they're thinking and what they're not.

I mentioned earlier to the leader that one forecaster suggested sometime during the summer that all the forecasters are right some of the time, none of them are right all of the time, and most of them are wrong most of the time.

C. James: I'll move on in a moment to some of the boards and councils that the Premier has put together that provide him both with forecasts as well as other areas.

I think it's just important for the public to take a moment to reflect on the afternoon we've spent and the questions that we've gone through, because it really is important. When the public is taking a look at the economy and the challenges in the economy, they expect openness and accountability. They expect that when the Premier says that he is going to provide information, that he will provide information.

Yet what we've learned through this process is that the Premier was told during the election campaign that the numbers, the revenue, was falling. The Premier himself says the numbers he was told were $200 million to $300 million. He's then admitted that on May 14 he was told that revenue was plunging $1.1 billion to $1.3 billion, which is a huge gap, and yet the Premier didn't feel it was important to tell the public. The Premier didn't feel it was important.

The Chair: Hon. Member, that material has been canvassed extensively.

C. James: I think it's important that the public be aware of those kinds of issues.

I now want to move on, as I said, to the advisory groups that the Premier has put forward, and we have a large number of these. We know that the Premier tends to put advisory councils, groups, boards together. Just to name a few that I want to run through: the Economic Advisory Council, the Progress Board, the Competition Council, the Technology Council. We also know that the Premier, and he's mentioned it himself, discusses things with the Economic Forecast Council. I would like to explore each of those bodies and perhaps start with the Progress Board.

When the Premier put together the Progress Board, here's what he said its role would be. "The B.C. Progress Board will provide a new level of accountability for our government by establishing specific economic goals for the tax, regulatory and fiscal reforms we undertake. The B.C. Progress Board will play an important role in helping us renew prosperity and opportunity for all." That's a news release from the Office of the Premier in 2001.

I would like to ask the Premier: does the Progress Board still play an important role for the Premier in guiding government's economic policy and reforms?

Hon. G. Campbell: I believe the Progress Board provides a valuable sounding board for the public. I think it provides valuable information for the public. They report publicly, and they report independently of government. They are supported by government, but they report independently of government.

C. James: My question to the Premier was: does the Premier believe that they're an important board in helping him guide government's direction around the economy?

[1800]

Hon. G. Campbell: I believe that the Progress Board provides valuable input. It's not always agreed to by government, but they provide valuable input. I think the critical component of the Progress Board's contribution is that it is independent of government. They look at a range of issues that they feel are of interest, and in good faith they make recommendations to government, which the government can either agree to or disagree to.

It's not like they're shaping all of the government's policies. They're suggesting that there are things the government should look at and may be interested in pursuing. They also provide an annual update in terms of the economy and indicators, and I think those updates are valuable for the public to look at and to reach their own conclusions with regard to the endeavours the government has undertaken.

C. James: The Premier says the Progress Board plays an important role. It's independent and provides advice to government. The Premier put the Progress Board together, and earlier I read his quote. During these difficult economic times, you would think it would be important for the Premier to receive information or engage with the Progress Board, but in fact the Premier's calendar shows no meetings with the Progress Board.

In an FOI that the opposition did regarding the Progress Board and its December '08 report, which was called Current Realities and the Way Forward, and any communication that may have occurred between the Progress Board and the Premier's report, the FOI came back that said there were no records. There were no meetings between the Premier or any of his staff and the Progress Board between November 1, 2008, and February 20, 2009.

I would think that the Progress Board…. If it plays an important role, as the Premier said, the Premier would have met with them. My question is to the Premier. Does he not meet with the Progress Board anymore?
[ Page 2763 ]

Hon. G. Campbell: As I've said, the Progress Board provides valuable input. It writes independent reports, and those reports are made public. They are available on the Web. The Progress Board itself reports directly to the Ministry of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development. I have met with them in the past. I did not meet with them in that period of time if it was not in my calendar. I intermittently may meet with them. It's not something, evidently, that I did at that time.

C. James: Just to follow up again on this piece, the Premier used to meet with the Progress Board two to four times a year in previous calendars, if we take a look. The Premier says he didn't meet with them. His calendar points out that he didn't meet with them from November 1, '08, to February 20, the key economic time in the building of the budget as well as the economic statement that the Premier made.

Does the Premier receive any communication or advice from his own Progress Board?

[1805]

Hon. G. Campbell: The Progress Board reports on more than simply economic matters. They report on environmental matters; they report on social issues. There's a whole series of them that I can go to their reports and point out.

The reports are made available publicly. They are accessible to the opposition, to the government. I think it's a valuable service that they provide to the public when they're looking at things like tax burdens, like economic indicators. Those are things that independently they put together and say to the public: "Here's the progress that we're making. Here are the areas where we may not be doing as well as we could, and here are the areas where we're doing very well."

I do think it's important to have an independent group that's doing that, and that's, in fact, one of the functions that the Progress Board performs.

C. James: So the Premier is saying, then, he doesn't meet with the Progress Board on a regular basis.

Just moving on from the Progress Board, in the same month that the Premier's Progress Board brought forward their report, which I mentioned before, Current Realities and the Way Forward — which, by the way, recommended the HST — the Premier then created a whole new body. This body was the Premier's Economic Advisory Council.

My question to the Premier is: why did he feel it important to set up that advisory council, when he had the Progress Board in place?

Hon. G. Campbell: I always think it's important to actually have the opportunity to hear from people who are involved directly in the economy, not necessarily with government. The Progress Board is one way of doing that. Another way of doing that is to establish an economic advisory council that will provide information directly to cabinet.

The Economic Advisory Council has a membership including David Emerson, who is the CEO and chair of B.C. Transmission Corporation; Sarah Boatman, who is the chief financial and operating officer for a technology company called BigPark; Barry Marsden, who has been a very successful business person in the aerospace industry in British Columbia; George Melville, who is the chairman and co-owner of T&M Management Services; Peter Misek, who is the director for global technology and global technology strategist for Canaccord Adams; Sean Morrison, who is from Maxam Opportunities Fund; Christopher Philps, who is an executive vice-president of Polygon Homes; Yuen Pau Woo, who is the president of the Asia Pacific Foundation; and Paola Yawney, who is with Tricor Pacific Capital.

What we actually specifically asked the Economic Advisory Council to do was look at a broad range of opportunities that we may be able to take advantage of in a very challenging economic time. These include energy and the environment, the Asia-Pacific, natural resources and forestry, human resources, and streamlining federal-provincial government processes.

One of the challenges that we like to present people with is: "Think outside of what the regular government response is to these problems. You know, be willing to challenge us, to task us with various things, and give us your rationale why, and tell us how you think the people in British Columbia will benefit."

I think that the Economic Advisory Council, who will be reporting directly to cabinet and have made some suggestions to cabinet, will add valuable insights to all of us who are working, frankly, around the clock. We're working within government. I think it's always good to hear from people outside government as well.

C. James: The Premier mentioned one of the appointees to his new Economic Advisory Council, Yuen Pau Woo. He's quoted as saying that the council members were told the Premier wanted "a fresh perspective from people not involved in government machinery."

[1810]

My question to the Premier would be: how is that a different role than the Progress Board that the Premier has just described as independent from government?

Hon. G. Campbell: There's actually…. At least, I differentiate between the Progress Board and the economic council. I think the Economic Advisory Council is asked to look at broad areas of concern in an integrative kind of way.

Let me just use the member of the council that was raised by the Leader of the Opposition. He's the head of
[ Page 2764 ]
the Asia Pacific Foundation, and he comes forward with recommendations that suggest that it's very important for us to think broadly about how we deal with the Asia-Pacific. That could touch a whole range of areas. They're looking prospectively. They're looking out. They're saying: "These are the steps that we could take as we go forward."

The Progress Board is actually not dealing with as much prospectively as they are looking at what we have found, what we have been able to measure, what we do see in terms of our progress and a whole range of information.

I refer the member to the Progress Board report of 2008. There are measures on the economy, innovation and education. There are measures on the environment, health and safety. There are measures on internal performance reviews.

All of those things are added. They continue on over a period of years. They reflect what we've done in the past as well as what we've had with the last period of measurement.

As the Progress Board themselves will say, it's often difficult to put these things together, because there are different measures that are used and that they are trying to pull together so that we have an index that people can use. They've got a level of consistency — for example, where B.C. ranks in cardiovascular mortality; where B.C. ranks in terms of air quality; where B.C. ranks in terms of environment, health and safety. There are six targets there.

Performance index on air quality, greenhouse gases, protected areas, life expectancy, cancer mortality, cardiovascular mortality, infant mortality, potential years of life, low-income cutoffs, low-birth-weight rates, crime rates, income assistance, long-term unemployed — those are all under the area of environment, health and safety.

That's one area that I think provides people with information. It allows them to see the context of it, allows the public to look out over a period of time and say: "I see we're making progress." I think it's important to note that no one is suggesting that everyone's job is done. I'd be surprised if we ever get to the point where everyone's job is done.

On the economy, they give us measures on economic growth, personal income, employment rate, hourly wages, productivity, exports, debt, debt tax burden, tax rates, surplus deficits, migration, business investment, public school graduates, university completion, research and development, science employment. Those are measures that they feel are important for us to know about. We can decide to use them or not use them, as we decide. They may have a project that they set aside for themselves that they'll report out on. That's made available to the public as well.

The Economic Advisory Council, on the other hand, we ask to look at the broad range of economic opportunities that are in front of us, as I mentioned earlier, in some areas where British Columbia has a real, I believe, competitive advantage. We have a real competitive advantage with regard to clean energy. We can become the clean energy powerhouse of North America. That's a good goal, I believe, for us to have.

[1815]

It's also good to know the steps that we can take as government to help nurture that goal, to help make sure that we can be successful as we pursue that goal. I have every expectation that the Economic Advisory Council will have some advice to give us, to give cabinet, on that.

They will come and report to cabinet. In their reports to cabinet, they will suggest the things that they think, if we really want to accomplish these goals, we may want to do. Cabinet will then be in a position where they can decide whether they want to pursue or not pursue that advice, as they do with advice that we get from any advisory council.

None of this is providing people with the opportunity to make decisions. It's to have input to decisions, to make recommendations to government, to provide advice to government so that we can try and assure that we take the right steps in improving the quality of life for British Columbians through a strong economy and excellent health care and education opportunities.

C. James: While I appreciate everything the Premier said — that the councils are there and the Progress Board is there to provide him with advice, to provide information — in fact, as the Premier said himself, he didn't meet with the Progress Board between November and February. In fact, in his calendar the only scheduled meeting of the Economic Advisory Council between December and May was December 16 — one meeting.

I would like to ask the Premier: what was that December 16 meeting for, and what was the agenda?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, let me go back for a second with regard to the Progress Board. The Progress Board looks back ten years so that people can see the progress that's been made. They may decide in their analysis that they want to look at some place in particular.

I can recall them doing a report with regard to post-secondary education, the importance of expanding university opportunities around the province. That advice was taken by government, and it's why we see a number of new universities being created and new additions that have been added in terms of investments and the number of spaces, etc.

That wasn't because they did it, but it was an idea that they had that the government felt was one that was worth pursuing. It was not as a result of a meeting that I had. It was a result of a report that they did.

The Economic Advisory Council is different. I should just say that members of both the Progress Board and the Economic Advisory Council serve without com-
[ Page 2765 ]
pensation. They serve as a public service. So we actually decided…. I had a meeting with the people — I think I read them out earlier — who are members of the Economic Advisory Council.

One of the important things I think people have to know when they're asked to serve on an independent board is that they are independent. I don't say to them: "Please come back and give recommendations that I would like or the government would like. Don't come back and feel that you have to make our decisions for us. You give us your best advice, unfettered by interference."

It's not necessary — in fact, it may be counterproductive — for me to be consistently meeting with people who are willing to make a contribution to public life without compensation, on the basis that they can provide advice. We reserve the right not to accept it. We reserve the right to disagree with it. If they provide the advice and we want to disagree with it, I would give them the courtesy of meeting with them and explaining why I am in disagreement.

They'll know that because, in terms of the Economic Advisory Council, they'll be providing their advice directly to cabinet. I think that's important. That independence is important. The amount of times that I meet with them is not important in terms of their ability to render independent advice to the government — and to the public, in the case of the Progress Board.

C. James: Just to come back again to the Premier, since we didn't get a response around the December 16 meeting and what that meeting was for. Was the Economic Advisory Council providing economic advice to the Premier about the upcoming budget?

[1820]

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm not certain of the dates, but my recollection was that we appointed the Economic Advisory Council and made a public declaration about the appointment of the Economic Advisory Council in early December of 2008.

If I met with them…. The only time I have met with them, I met to say: "Thank you for taking this on. This is a legitimate request for unfettered advice that will come directly to cabinet."

C. James: The Premier mentioned that was the only meeting he's had with the Economic Advisory Council. Is it still an active council, and if so, when was the last meeting that the group had?

Hon. G. Campbell: I don't know the number of times the Economic Advisory Council has met together. I know they are still in the process of developing their report, and they will provide advice to cabinet when that report is complete.

I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, hon. Chair, in light of the hour.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:23 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 resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:25 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH SERVICES

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:38 p.m.

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

The Chair: Good afternoon, everybody, and welcome to the Douglas Fir Room, Committee A. We're doing the budget estimates for the Minister of Health.

I would like to let everyone know in the gallery that there is no use of BlackBerrys, cell phones or Palms. There's no use of cellular or voice communication at any time in this House. Members at their desks are allowed to use computers and BlackBerrys to access information, but not to use it when they're acknowledged to take the floor.

A. Dix: When we were interrupted by the lunch break, I had asked a question of the minister about the therapeutics initiative — the state of the grant and what the government was doing there. I think he was in mid-answer when he moved the motion.

[1440]
[ Page 2766 ]

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised by staff that we're no longer utilizing the therapeutics initiative. As the member would know, we struck a pharmaceutical task force back in late 2007 — I want to make sure I get the date right; yes — to examine pharmaceutical policy. It was a nine-member task force made up of academics, pharmaceutical industry leaders and government policy-makers that made a series of recommendations, which were generally around three themes.

The first was to try and improve timelines to a decision on the listing and approval of drugs. The second was around the transparency of the process. Fairly or unfairly, there were criticisms made about a lack of transparency and understanding about the decisions that were made previously through the therapeutics initiative.

The third was to expand evidence-based resources in terms of informing those decisions that would be made on drug decisions. That would be around clinical expertise; the scope of clinical expertise which is informing those decisions — to broaden that; and literature reviews to ensure that the broadest possible input is being received prior to decisions ultimately being made.

A. Dix: Is the minister saying that for the fiscal year we're in, the grant for the therapeutics initiative has been, shall we say, reduced to nothing — so that we don't have to use the word "cut" again? Or was he saying that they were changing the title of the organization? Because as the minister will know, this is an organization with an international reputation that has been consistently right in its key advice, both to policy-makers and to citizens — an organization that has saved lives, that has promoted evidence-based health care and so on.

I think that perhaps the minister was unclear in his response, because I don't think it is possible that an organization with so much value, with so much focus on independence, which costs a million dollars a year — which compares favourably to the hundreds of millions spent on the promotion of pharmaceuticals by pharmaceutical companies in the province — that such a program could be cut by the government. I can't believe that. I must not have heard correctly.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised that we still fund the faculty of medicine to support our drug review process, and they do so through their faculty, which includes appropriate clinicians, etc., who would help inform those decisions. I'm also informed that we're in the process of finalizing a new contract with UBC that would reflect the change in that we would no longer be directly, if I understood — and hopefully staff will correct me if I'm wrong — using the therapeutics initiative exclusively to provide the decisions around the listing of drugs.

[1445]

A. Dix: The minister says he's finalizing. I mean, the government, of course…. Because this initiative has been independent, and resolutely so, the therapeutics initiative has been a target, principally for the pharmaceutical industry, for a long time. I think it's very sad that an institution that has done an extraordinary job for British Columbia — I mean, truly, in terms of the lives saved and the money saved, as well, that could be used for other health care purposes — would be treated that way. It's extremely disappointing.

I guess my next question is for another institution at UBC. The minister will be aware…. He would have received a copy of something called The British Columbia Rx Atlas, which is a document produced by the UBC Centre for Health Services and Policy Research. This is an outstandingly useful document for policy-makers, to say the least, a document that, if we drilled down further, would actually help us help the province better prescribe prescription drugs. It shows the differences by community in prescription rates for different drugs and so on.

The UBC centre is an outstanding centre. I wanted to ask the minister whether in fact their grants, the grants for the centre, which provides independent health research, have been cut this year.

The Chair: Member.

A. Dix: Just to add to my concern with this outstanding centre — I really recommend this most recent report to the minister — I wanted to ask him about whether similar cuts in funding had taken place to something called Population Data B.C., which provides much of the data on which this is based.

We've talked about the therapeutics initiative. We're talking about the UBC Centre for Health Services and Policy Research, which gets grant money from the provincial government and is an incredible value in terms of the making of health policy and the development of independent health information in B.C, and then Population Data B.C., which is the second agency that — I'm concerned — has also received a cut in funding. I just wanted to confirm those two things.

[1450]

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is correct with respect to the work that went on with Population Data. Recognizing the fact that our jurisdiction, not unlike others around the world, is facing rather unprecedented economic times…. As a result of that, when reviewing applications for discretionary grants, we were not able to fund all the requests, and some difficult decisions had to be made. This was one of those decisions that had to be made.

Our feeling was that in an era where a 20 percent budget increase still wasn't enough, we would rather be without population data for a couple of years while
[ Page 2767 ]
we get through these economically difficult times rather than have to not fund a direct health provision of service to individuals. That was the difficult decision that was made.

It is not an indictment on the research or the work they did. It was more a statement on the fiscal situation that the government finds itself in.

A. Dix: I understand that the minister will be getting back to us or someone on CHSPR. Is that fair to say?

I think that the challenge is that we often talk in these discussions about evidence-based work. In British Columbia what's recognized for its evidence-based work is the therapeutics initiative. They're getting rid of it. What's recognized for evidence-based work? CHSPR. They're cutting the grant. What's recognized for evidence-based work? Population Data B.C. What's recognized? The health system projects funded by the Michael Smith Foundation.

As we struggle with these budgets — the minister is right; the struggle with Health budgets didn't begin yesterday, and it's gone on for a long time — these are the means by which we make the correct decisions, not just the correct decisions in terms of Health but the correct decisions in terms of the proper and efficient allocation of Health dollars.

It's very disappointing that these really small grants, which allow the government to make the right funding decisions and allow it to save money ultimately, I think, and not just ultimately, but routinely and repeatedly, over the last decade, are being cut. I think that's shortsighted thinking, especially given the cost of the programs. I'm unlikely, I suspect, to convince the minister.

I want to ask the minister a question. Let me just lay out for staff, because it's a little bit of an afternoon. We're going to be moving people in and out, so I'll just give you a sense of what we're going to do next.

I mentioned that between three and four we're going to do Lyme disease. We're going to do a short discussion of e-health. Then we're going to have a very brief discussion of the ten-year mental health plan. Then we're going to have a little discussion of nurse practitioners. We're going to get around. We're just going to do a little tour here. [French was spoken.] Then we're going to have a brief discussion of seniors care and the increases that the minister has put forward.

A number of members, principally from Fraser Health Authority ridings, are going to come. That'll follow that. And then the minister and I are going to finish with a brief discussion of surgical tourism, for want of a better term. Those are the kinds of issues we're going to do in order.

I just want to start with a brief discussion, principally of the PITO project, in e-health and the project to sign up doctors for electronic medical records. It's a $108 million program. It's essentially a subsidy program to doctors. I won't go back over the serious issues we had with the selection of the approved candidates for the e-health project.

I would like to ask the minister: how many people have signed up so far through PITO, even with the addition of the $108 million subsidy? Is it his and the ministry's view still that this massive subsidy is necessary given the considerable drop in the cost of the software involved?

[1455]

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised that there are currently 430 physicians who use the electronic medical records, while 2,100 have enrolled to have their systems upgraded. I'm also advised, for the benefit of people that may be listening or paying attention, that this is essentially to allow physicians to store their patients' records on an electronic file which can be easily accessed through the doctor's computer. It's certainly a worthy objective and something that many people for many years have wondered why it wasn't that way.

As part of the agreement with the B.C. Medical Association, the agreement was that that $108 million would be provided to encourage the doctors to sign up and become part of this program. It's believed that there is a larger public health benefit if we can get all the doctors, ultimately, on line and allow medical records to be electronically shared between doctors' offices.

The belief, and I think it's sound, is that there would ultimately be better patient outcomes by ensuring…. In fact, just as recently as this morning in a discussion I was having with some individuals, they were pointing out the frustration of their wives going through a situation involving breast cancer where every time they would go meet with a new specialist, the first thing they had to do was update the practitioner on what their medical history was.

The idea is that if you have all of this electronically available, it would be easily accessible by each of the physicians in a form that could be readily accessed.

A. Dix: I'll just ask the minister, then. It's $108 million in potential subsidy under the agreement. How much of that money either has been spent or is called for?

Hon. K. Falcon: We're going to try and get that exact number for the member. I'm advised it's a six-year program. We're currently in year 2. Typically, the expectation of staff in these programs is that while it takes time to kind of ramp up the programs in the early stages, you tend to have the biggest part of the spend in the latter stages. We are attempting to get the exact figure for the member.

[1500]

A. Dix: Fair enough. It seems to me, if you look at the costs…. They are, of course, all out on the ministry
[ Page 2768 ]
website for the five companies in question: Intrahealth, $9,800 in setup costs; Med Access, $9,300 in setup costs; EMIS, $6,840 in setup costs; Osler, $7,285 in service costs; Wolf, $4,850.

That's all the setup costs. The government has committed to assisting with 70 percent of that. In addition to that, there are costs in each of the first three years, which the government is also committed to supporting. So that's a net for the four, and this is from the government's website, of $18,696 for Med Access to $24,025 for Osler — right? — of which the government is on the hook for 70 percent.

What's happened in the market is that these programs are cheaper. In fact, even with a 70 percent subsidy from the government, there are companies out there — reputable companies that have major clients in B.C. — that are lower than them on price now, even with the 70 percent. There's one company that's offering a no-cost setup and $1,560 a year. Cardiologists in the Diamond Centre were offered $500 a year per doctor — right?

There's no disputing the benefits, but what I'm suggesting is that you've got $108 million subsidy program — there used to be six businesses, but one has failed from the process, so now five — that is essentially not necessary. That's the clear fact of the matter. What I'm suggesting to the minister….

I think that clearly the decisions here were made in good faith a couple years ago, but maybe just like — I don't know — HDTV or anything else, the costs have come down, and the subsidy is essentially just a subsidy of the companies. It's not actually providing much assistance. So if you take the 70 percent off, then these companies might be competitive, but they're not very competitive otherwise at these prices.

Why would the people of British Columbia pay for an unnecessary subsidy to some private businesses? I mean, that might sound — dare I say it? — Soviet, but I think that's not what the ministry should be looking for.

Hon. K. Falcon: A couple of things. The first is that it's important to compare apples to apples when we talk about what may now be on the market.

First of all, a full RFP was followed in selecting the providers for this service. It's also important to recognize that there were requirements, additional requirements, to make the software interoperable. It all had to be able to connect and work with each other.

There were also additional security requirements that were going to be added to that so that the providers that took part in the RFP had to pass conformance standards, which included that interoperability and, of course, the additional security requirements.

One thing I certainly know about the software industry is that there's no shortage of people who will always approach you and tell you that whatever system you have is the worst system, that they have the better system and that theirs would be cheaper. I've also learned that after you drill down a little bit, sometimes that's not exactly as it may appear.

Having said that, I do recognize the member's comment that we have to be aware. Of course, whenever government goes down a path of going through an open and competitive tendering process and, ultimately, selecting the successful providers for technology or software programs, there is always the risk that at some point down the road someone else, as the member said, builds a better TV or whatever the case may be. I acknowledge that that is certainly a reality.

[1505]

My understanding is and I'm advised by staff that the additional requirements are really what make a distinction between some of the people out there that say, "Oh, mine would be cheaper," etc.

A. Dix: Well, none of these companies, when they were selected, could meet the interoperability test. It took them ages to get there. And none of the companies with previous experience in other jurisdictions, other than one of these that bought a company in other jurisdictions, were there.

You know, it's fascinating to hear that discussion. I should add that none of these companies are qualified to provide the equivalent in the PharmaNet program. None of them are. Other companies are involved, including some of the companies that are much cheaper on price now.

My point to the minister is that this policy of massive subsidy to these companies is a mistake, and it's costing the taxpayers money. I'm always concerned, because the minister is always there to remind me of the need to have enough money in health care. What's clear from the evidence is that this $108 million, this massive subsidy, is not necessary.

That's pretty clear from what the other companies said. If the minister wants to check it out, he can check it out. But it doesn't seem to me, with respect, that we should be subsidizing a total cost of $18,696 to $24,025 for systems that we can get for a whole bunch cheaper than that.

That doesn't seem to me to make sense. I mean, they're probably the same price for the doctor. All we're doing is using public funds to subsidize the system. There are better uses, including in an EMR, which I agree with the minister is an important initiative for us to pursue. It'll improve health care in the province, it will improve the delivery of health care services, and it will certainly help with things like chronic disease management and so on.

I understand all that, but what the government has is a subsidy program that no longer makes any sense, based on the market. What I'm suggesting to the minister is that he review that and that he bring more companies in.
[ Page 2769 ]
If he wants them to meet the tests of the program — my understanding is that they probably can, because they meet the test of other government programs with respect to privacy right now, including PharmaNet, which none of these companies have been able to do — then I'd suggest that he do that. Expand the terms, and make the subsidy more reflective of the present status quo.

We don't want to throw money…. I know the minister doesn't want to throw money away on an unnecessary subsidy that's going to cost the taxpayers money, because he doesn't want to be cutting MRIs and surgeries and so on. He wants to assign money appropriately in health care.

I'm suggesting to him that this requires a review. It is a public policy mistake, and it's an unnecessary subsidy. You could argue that a smaller subsidy or another approach might do the same for less money.

Hon. K. Falcon: First of all, I disagree entirely with the premise of the member's criticism. The member is calling this a massive subsidy. Actually, this was what, in sitting down with the B.C. Medical Association in discussing how we would be able to get the doctors on line with the program that we all recognize…. I would hope even the member opposite would recognize that there are real benefits to having a system that allows physicians to have an electronic medical record in their office of their patients that could be shared between physicians to the benefit of better patient care.

What the BCMA said to us is: "There's going to have to be a pretty significant inducement to get the doctors encouraged to bring about that change." Admittedly, we could just do a program, like the member apparently would propose, where no change happens and nobody takes it up. That is always an option. I acknowledge that.

But we decided we should actually try and do something that would work, so we consulted with the doctors. The member can call it a massive subsidy to doctors if he wants. I call it an appropriate inducement to doctors. Many are very wedded to an old way of doing things. We acknowledge that. They acknowledge it, for goodness' sake. I mean, go talk to your GP, and they will probably acknowledge that.

We are trying to actually encourage them to be part of this change, because the change will ultimately deliver better care for patients. It could be why — I understand, according to staff — there are lots of other provinces that are looking to B.C. saying: "They got the model right." That's why it's working here, that's why it's being implemented here, and that's not the same result that they're seeing apparently, I'm advised, in other provinces.

[1510]

Believe me, I'm on the record for saying concerns I have generally about large-scale programs like this. I think there are always big risks involved. But to try and just attack the program as a massive subsidy to doctors I think is very unfair to the doctors of the province and to the BCMA, who negotiated on their behalf in very good faith with government to say: "How can we try and have a program that will be successful and will induce doctors to actually come on board?" We are seeing that they are, in fact, coming on board. That's exactly what we hoped to see, and we want to see that continue.

A. Dix: The only problem with what the minister has just said is, of course, that it's not what I said. This is not a massive subsidy program to doctors, because with the 70 percent cut…. What I'm suggesting to the minister is that there are companies that can offer this service and are competitive and are winning right now against PITO companies that have a 70 percent price advantage brought about by the government.

It's a subsidy. It is a subsidy. The minister is very well informed, I'm sure, but I'm saying to him that this is a subsidy to the companies, not to the doctors.

I mean, the doctors surely don't care, really, if the government subsidy is paid. If they're going to pay the same price for something, they don't care. For example, the cardiologists at the Diamond Centre, who presumably know something about this and have a modern view of health care and everything else, take the view…. They've done this. They've gone with a company offering a service that's under the price, including the 70 percent subsidy, which meets their demands and their needs and the system's demands and needs.

What I'm saying to the minister is that this is worthy of his review, because it seems to me that a subsidy to these five bidding companies…. Not to the doctors, because the doctors are going to get an EMR system now for less than they would get it two years from now. I think we can acknowledge that.

The decision to price-fix and subsidize these five companies is the subsidy that I don't think is required in British Columbia. I'm suggesting to the minister that he reconsider, because that $108 million in subsidy — which effectively may not do much for doctors, but will do a lot for these companies — would be better spent elsewhere in the health care system. That is the position I'm putting forward to the minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: Again I want to remind the member that the vendors involved in this program went through, and we worked jointly with, the BCMA on this program. The vendors went through a fair, open and transparent process to be selected to be part of this program.

The member opposite can talk about others that can claim to do the same thing at less price, but I want to remind the member that they haven't got the same requirements in terms of the full functionality that is being required and was part of this process. That includes the
[ Page 2770 ]
interoperability, and that includes the additional security requirements.

The member can call it what the member wants, but the fact of the matter is that he keeps referring to the Diamond Centre when he should know — I hope he would know — that the majority of the physicians at the Diamond Centre are specialists that don't have the same requirements as the GPs, the general practitioners.

We are working with the B.C. Medical Association. The BCMA has been pretty clear. In fact, they are the ones that are insisting…. We went through a fair and open process. We selected the identified vendors. The BCMA is quite insistent that we work with those vendors.

I know that everyone will come to the table and say: "I'm sure I can do it cheaper," and, "I've discovered someone else that will do it cheaper." But again, you have to be careful not to compare apples with oranges. You have to make sure you understand that through that fair, open and vigorous process, the transparent RFP that we went through….

[1515]

There were additional requirements too, and some of the other programs that apparently have seduced the member opposite may not have the same functional things in place as the ones that were ultimately selected as part of this process.

A. Dix: The decisions to short-list these companies were the subject of last year's estimates, so I won't get into that discussion, although I would say that companies that have been successful and have experience in doing this were not selected against some companies that were. In any event, this is a subsidy that doesn't need to be spent, and that's the point.

If, I dare say, the Minister of Health is looking around at things to cut — and he's cut all these evidence-based programs, some at UBC and so on — a massive, unneeded subsidy is one of the things he could consider cutting. That seems a reasonable thing to me. I suspect he'd have a lot of support all over the place if he did that. That's my suggestion to the minister.

What may have appeared a couple of years ago to be a good deal for taxpayers…. I don't know if it appeared that way a couple years ago. It certainly is not the case today that giving $108 million to these companies which are getting it — it's not the doctors who are getting the subsidy really; it's these companies — is the right course. In any event, I won't belabour the point, except to say that this is a lot of money. It seems to me that the government would do well to consider reviewing this decision to offer subsidies to these companies. It should review that decision and go in another direction.

We'll move on to the next subject because I don't think, again, I'm going to convince the minister. But I'm hoping on that question that something in the back of his mind — the idea of maybe limiting a massive public subsidy, perhaps a book he's read in the past — will twig, and he'll one day consider taking a look at a program that I don't think is working very well for the taxpayer.

I had a question for the minister. This is a question that he will have got, because I think he's taken some of these meetings, and his assistant deputy ministers have taken these meetings with respect to nurse practitioners, so I wanted to talk to the minister a little bit. We're moving around here. This is the final day of Health estimates. This is what happens.

I've been in touch with nurse practitioners, and I know that the minister has. We've seen a dramatic increase in the number of nurse practitioners who have graduated in recent years. One of the challenges when I meet with nurse practitioners, I say to the minister, is their inability to practise, to be employed as nurse practitioners. In fact, currently — and there are another 68 nurse practitioners who've just graduated, I believe — there are 51 unemployed nurse practitioners. I don't mean "unemployed" in the sense that they're unemployed. I mean they're unemployed as nurse practitioners.

I said to them: "Well, what would you ask the Minister of Health if you had the Minister of Health in front of you?" They offered me some suggestions, so I'm going to ask the minister a couple of questions. With 51 unemployed nurse practitioners and 68 about to graduate, they've made the point that if nurse practitioners could see a conservative number of 15 patients a day, that would be, over the course of a year, 191,000 opportunities for primary care access.

They've made the point and expressed the concern about their inability to operate and to access and bill MSP. It would be an interesting decision to do that. I want to ask the minister about this, because we've made a significant effort. I think it's a positive effort in health care. It has taken place during the years of this government. You see there? I said it to the minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: It sounds good even if you didn't say it.

A. Dix: You see? You see there? I said it. It has taken place largely, as it has in other places. We've seen an expansion of nurse practitioners, but it's a problem. We have this big investment in nurse practitioners, but this huge percentage of nurse practitioners can't find work as nurse practitioners. I think the minister will understand that's a problem.

I wanted to ask the minister to respond to these questions that have been raised with me by nurse practitioners and see if we can't develop some better solutions that would allow nurse practitioners to work to the level of their training, which I think is generally a goal in the health care system.

[1520]
[ Page 2771 ]

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

Hon. K. Falcon: First of all, one of the unfortunate things about these debates back and forth is that often you will have a statement made on the last issue and you never get a chance to finish it off because, understandably, the members want to move on to new issues.

But I do want to make a point with regard to the last discussion we were having about the medical records programs with the physicians — the member's suggestion that we ought to abandon what we were doing and move towards other providers that might want to provide this service, allegedly, at a cheaper price.

I think the challenge is pretty obvious with respect to that. What you're essentially saying, critic, is that we ignore an RFP result that was a fair, open and competitively tendered result, change direction midstream and contravene our agreements not only with those providers but with the BCMA, which was the group that we negotiated the agreement with on how we were going to move forward.

I just want to get that on the record to make very clear that we won't be doing that for sure. That would be most inappropriate, in my view, as a way of proceeding with that program.

With respect to the nurse practitioner program, I thank the member for acknowledging that that was a program started under my predecessor, the former Minister of Health. We're very proud that our government was the first in B.C. history to establish this training program. Between '05-06 and '09-10, B.C. will have allocated almost $63 million to health authorities to expand the implementation of nurse practitioners and increase the number of nurse practitioners in areas of need.

Now, we do think that they can play a particularly important role in primary care, including the management of chronic disease. There are a couple of challenges that we've seen. I've certainly met with the nurse practitioners' leadership from their association, and this is an ongoing discussion with staff. But I think that at a high level, I would describe the challenges as two.

One is that the demand is particularly strong in rural areas, where we think the nurse practitioners would play a particularly important role in dealing with the primary care efforts that we're trying to expand in rural British Columbia. Most of the nurse practitioners want their practice in urban areas. That's not the same area that we require, nor does there appear to be as strong an appetite for engaging the nurse practitioners.

We are, having recognized that, working on how we can develop a mechanism that would encourage or incent doctors to want to hire nurse practitioners for their offices, so that we could encourage the doctors to understand the benefit that a nurse practitioner being added to their staff could mean in terms of providing better front-line primary care to their patients.

[1525]

That's something we're currently in discussion on with our staff and stakeholder groups to see whether there's a mechanism where we can make sure that we take advantage of all the trained nurse practitioners out there and put their skills and abilities to work right across the province of British Columbia.

A. Dix: On the EMR question I'd just say that there's another principle, which is not to waste public money. That's the principle that I think is under question there. It's not: "My province, 'tis of thee, sweet land of subsidy." It should be treating taxpayers' money correctly.

Just to follow up…. As I say, the nurse practitioners want to work with the government. What they've said to me and what they want to ask the minister, really, is: first of all, would he support the notion of having nurse practitioner–run clinics that can readily engage the public in providing access to timely health care?

This is a concern for them for a number of reasons. That's a specific question they've asked. I think it's a legitimate question in the light of some of the concerns around primary care in the province. It's a question they asked because, of course, the government has funded the education of nurse practitioners but seems to exclude them from using the full capacity of their profession.

Further, as I say, almost one-third of those people, on whom the government has spent an extensive amount of money supporting, are now unemployed as nurse practitioners. So what you're seeing and what the minister will see and what they've said…. I know they've said it to the minister, so it won't be a surprise to him.

What we're seeing is that we're training nurse practitioners and seeing them go either to other jurisdictions or to the United States. That's clearly not desirable. While it's important to be a centre for education, we don't necessarily want to be in the business of educating nurse practitioners for every other jurisdiction in North America.

Those are the questions for the minister. Does he not think that nurse practitioners could be better used in these settings? Does he not agree with nurse practitioners that nurse practitioner–led clinics are an idea whose time has come, given both the cost issues of public health care and the challenges of access to primary care?

Hon. K. Falcon: When I met with the B.C. Nurse Practitioners Association back in September — the leadership — there was no question in my mind that I think we need to work with the association and do what we can to ensure that we are incorporating all of the graduated nurses into the program of primary care across the province to ensure that we fully utilize their skill set, which is considerable.

I committed, and we are meeting the commitment of continuing to work with their association. I've got staff continuing to work with the association to ensure that we come up with the answers. I won't pretend to have all the
[ Page 2772 ]
answers here. As the minister, I don't think that would be entirely responsible. But all the suggestions that the nurse practitioners are bringing forward, both to the member opposite and to my staff, are being worked through.

We now have 31 integrated health networks that we are putting in place across the province to, again, encourage a system of increased primary care utilization. We think that nurse practitioners can and will, in fact, play a role in those integrated health networks — an important role.

The bottom line here is that I've met with the nurse practitioners. Staff continue to work with them. We will be informed by their input but also by input of staff as we try to work to make sure that all of the nurse practitioners wishing to practise in this province will be able to do so to the full scope of their abilities.

A. Dix: We have 51 nurse practitioners, and one-third of the total right now are not employed as nurse practitioners, having spent all this money to train people. Another 68 are coming on, as I understand it, very soon. Does the minister not think there's something wrong with a system that creates that capacity and then doesn't use it?

I hear the minister that he's heard the point, and he's working on it. But aren't we at risk if we don't deal with it with some haste, missing an opportunity to provide better, more efficient health care and also missing an opportunity to utilize the skills of people who, like everyone else in life, want, as a means of their personal expression, to work to the full extent of their skills?

[1530]

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes. But having said that, we have to recognize that there are realities we deal with. The realities are the more challenging thing. We can all at a high level say: "Yes, we want everyone to work with their full skills. Yes, we think they can play an important role in primary care, and for goodness' sake, why on earth doesn't that just happen overnight?"

Well, the reason could be as simple as what the CEO of the Interior Health Authority said to me when he said that the challenge is that the nurse practitioners they wish to hire most want to work in the urban centres of Vernon and Kelowna and aren't particularly interested in working in places like Clearwater or Barriere or other more rural or remote locations.

That is a challenge we want to try and work through, so that we can ensure that while we employ the nurse practitioners, we also meet the legitimate needs of some of the health authorities that are particularly challenged in trying to staff some of their more rural or remote locations.

The other issue I talked about is that we're trying to figure out how we can develop an appropriate mechanism which would provide a positive incentive for general practitioners, physicians, to want to have a nurse practitioner working as part of their operations. That's something we continue to work on. We want to try and find a solution so that there will be an appropriately strong demand for nurse practitioners throughout the system.

That is our goal. It's a question of how we get to that goal. We want to make sure we do it in a manner that is thoughtful. As I mentioned to the member, in the last few years we've provided almost $63 million to health authorities for the direct purpose of expanding the use and implementation of nurse practitioners within the system.

The issue is that even with all that investment, there still are nurse practitioners graduating — as I understand and the member opposite understands — who are not being hired immediately and put to the full use of their skill set.

That's not a situation that the member opposite is happy about. That's not a situation I'm happy about. So I want to figure out how we get to making sure they're fully utilized, recognizing some of the challenges that the authorities have had in putting them to work where they need them to be at work.

We'll continue to work on that, but I can assure the member opposite that this is an issue that has engaged the collective interest of the senior staff in my ministry. We're working to provide a solution in cooperation with the B.C. Nurse Practitioners Association.

A. Dix: Just to say to the minister…. I know he'll meet with nurse practitioners again. They'll tell him some of the problems with postings that are put forward and then pulled, in rural areas as well, for which there were candidates who applied. I mean, some of it is a problem with the health authority following through on things. The minister and I will continue, I'm sure, to promote and raise this question.

Very specific question to the minister: where is the ten-year mental health plan?

[1535]

Hon. K. Falcon: The draft mental health plan, which was developed over a 12-month period in cooperation with Healthy Living and Sport, the Ministry of Children and Family Development, the Ministry of Housing and health authorities, was prepared. A draft mental health plan was prepared. We then took that out on a fairly broad consultative process from February 24 to June 11 last year. There were ten consultative sessions that were held.

Based on the feedback we received from those consultative sessions, we've been refining the plan with the expectation that the timeline we're working on is bringing it forward to government early in the new year.

I also personally met with the B.C. Alliance, which is a stakeholder group representing a large number of
[ Page 2773 ]
agencies that are involved in delivering services for the mentally ill. We had a very, very good meeting. I wanted to make sure that I was fully informed in terms of what their priorities were. That work is now, as I say, being incorporated into finalizing that document. I will then receive a complete briefing on sort of the finalization of all that process coming together. We will be presenting that early in the new year to government.

A. Dix: Would the minister — or did I miss this? — be prepared to share a copy of the draft plan?

Hon. K. Falcon: Certainly, in the appropriate time. It would have to come to me first, and obviously I would have to take that to government through cabinet.

A. Dix: I misunderstand. I knew the minister could take me through the time frame. As he will know, there is a request for proposal for the plan in August, I think, of 2007. It was supposed to be completed by August 2008, which would have been the end of the previous ten-year plan, if I'm not mistaken.

Two questions. Will the plan that's produced in 2010 be from 2008 to 2018, or will it be from 2010 to 2020? When the minister talks about the consultation process, if the plan wasn't made public, in what way was it shared in those consultation settings? Were people able to read the plan in full and just not allowed to take it home with them? Is it just some people who got to see it but not others? I just want to gain some insight into this process.

[1540]

Hon. K. Falcon: Just to note for the member, the original RFP was actually for assistance in writing the plan, drafting the plan. It was actually for a writer. It's government that actually prepares the draft plan itself. That RFP wasn't for the actual plan. It was for someone to help write the plan that government would develop, or the draft plan.

In terms of when it would be effective, it would be effective when the plan is implemented. If the plan is introduced, as I fully expect it will be, in 2010, then the ten-year plan would obviously be to 2020.

In terms of how we did the consultative process, we had a framework and a consultation package which we used to inform the discussion on the consultative process. They were materials that were used to guide the discussions, to have a discussion about some of the issues. I'd be happy to make the information available to the member opposite so that he can have a look at what that information was. The idea was to try to begin a discussion and to receive as much input as possible from the large group of stakeholders in the community.

A. Dix: I appreciate that. The process was that presumably the previous Minister of Health would have approved the plan, would have read the plan that was developed, the draft plan. Then the previous Minister of Health would have approved it for consultation. As the minister rightly says, this is the government's plan, not the writer's plan.

The previous Minister of Health approved it, it went out, and it was shared in a sort of roundabout way. It wasn't given to people. It wasn't a consultation process that involved the tabling of the plan. Presumably that was decided because the tabling of a plan, in some respects at that point, would have committed the government to too much, in a way, in advance of the consultation process. Is that the reason why that strategic method of consultation was used?

It seems to me that the draft plan would have been approved by the government, even possibly by the cabinet, in advance of it going off in draft. This is a significant document in a major area of public policy.

[1545]

Hon. K. Falcon: The staff advise me that the draft framework plan or the draft framework that was put in place was really a framework and directional document to provide a discussion amongst all of the stakeholder groups to make sure that we fully inform ourselves as we prepare the ten-year mental health plan in the province of British Columbia.

This is the first time ever that we're developing a plan that goes across the full continuum of care, from the early prevention and promotion phase right through to acute severe mental illness, and it includes addictions in addition to that. This, I'm led to understand, is the first time ever in Canada that this has been done.

Naturally, when you're covering that large of a continuum, it is, by its very nature, a somewhat time-consuming but an important and necessary process to go through. Typically what happens in mental health plans is that they focus on the acute phase as opposed to the full continuum, which is what we're trying to do.

I can tell the member that Sen. Michael Kirby, who the member would well know, is chairing the Mental Health Commission of Canada. I had the opportunity to meet with Senator Kirby recently. He's an individual I have high regard for.

He's very excited about the draft framework approach that we've taken in British Columbia and the fact that we are focusing on the full continuum of mental health care from that early prevention-promotion phase — probably prevention, promotion, education is really what we're talking about in the early phase — right through to, of course, severe mental illness and addictions.

That is the basis of the draft framework that we went out in discussion with, with all the stakeholder groups.

A. Dix: The concern, I guess, is that participants in the consultation process told me, for example, that there
[ Page 2774 ]
was wide support expressed for groups on the addictions side — strangely enough, like the very groups that have lost their funding in recent times. The question is, as we make very dramatic decisions in this town about the Eric Martin Pavilion bed closures and other places, that decisions are being made in advance of the plan. The minister might well say that's the normal course of government, but that is a subject of some concern.

I just want to, then, check with the minister. The minister said that the plan will start, just for sake of argument, on April 1, 2010. It will go through to March 31, 2020. I don't want to pin the minister down too much, but what will happen is that the minister will release the plan at some point. Is that right? Maybe I missed it before, when I was making a note to myself, but when is the expected release date for the plan?

Hon. K. Falcon: That would be, obviously, a decision government will make once government's had the opportunity to see the plan that is being put together as a result of the input that's been put forward by many of the stakeholders that the member talks about.

The moment I get a chance to see the plan that they've come up with as a result of discussions and the framework document that's been out there for ten consultative processes, then I, of course, will take it to government, government will have a chance to look at it, and then we will make a decision about when it should be released.

To the member's other point with respect to changes regarding addiction services, of course, we did canvass that yesterday. I think the important thing to note is that those services continue to be provided, albeit in a different format that is informed by what we already know and are learning about best practices, particularly with respect to concurrent disorders.

[1550]

A. Dix: The minister will know that the director of services here in Victoria said that what they were doing is raising the level of acuity required to get access to care. That's what they were doing in those cuts. I don't think any mental health plan would support that.

I'm putting something in between here, because we're about to start some of my colleagues from Fraser Health. There's one question that I know the minister will want to comment on. It's principally a Vancouver Island Health Authority question, and he can take it on notice if he feels like and come back later. It's a question around very significant cuts that were made to bariatric surgery.

I know that the minister has received some correspondence from people up and down Vancouver Island that are very concerned. This is — I don't think there's any other way to describe it — a significant cut in the number of bariatric surgeries being done on Vancouver Island.

I'm wondering if the minister can tell us on what evidence that particular cut was made, because all of these surgeries have been previously done. This is a reduction of approximately 60 percent. All of these surgeries are medically necessary and deemed so, or they wouldn't be done and funded in the public health care system. I'm curious to know why the government chose this area to institute these very significant cuts.

As the minister will know, I and many other members on Vancouver Island and across B.C. have met with people in need of this surgery who are already facing very significant wait times. The decision to cut the number of surgeries — and this is a significant cut, from 124 surgeries a year to 52 cases a year — seems inconsistent with the already long wait times for bariatric surgery.

Hon. K. Falcon: Naturally, these are decisions that the Vancouver Island Health Authority makes with respect to how they allocate surgical procedures. It's worth noting for the member that the number of this form of bypass surgeries has steadily increased from 52 in '03-04 to 124 in '08-09.

The member is right to point out that VIHA has made a decision to reduce, I understand, based on the information I have, bariatric surgery by 50 cases this year. I had a meeting with Dr. Brad Amson to more fully understand the concerns that Dr. Amson had and what this will mean in terms of health impacts.

We had, I thought, a very fulsome and helpful discussion to me. There's no question in my mind that I think that the decision VIHA made around this does cause us to have a close look at the services that were being provided.

The challenge here in part, I understand, is that there are only a handful of surgeons that perform the procedure. Dr. Brad Amson is the key surgeon who performs the vast majority. There was some concern about building a provincial program around a handful of surgeons, because once you build all that infrastructure and finance all those infrastructure costs, if you lose a surgeon or the surgeon relocates or something similar to that happens, you find yourself in a very precarious position.

There is work being done within the ministry. Dr. Amson is an individual I have much regard for, and I understood the nature of the concerns he was raising.

[1555]

It is something that I have asked my staff to look further into, to make sure that the decision that VIHA has made is a decision that is supportable, even on the basis of the evidence that if you don't do the procedures, what the costs are that they may face as a result of the procedures not being undertaken. That's something that I think we also have to take a look at, and I'm not certain that VIHA did an appropriate level of work in that regard.

There is additional work being done in this. Dr. Amson is someone that we will continue to work with to see whether we can't resolve this issue to ensure that when VIHA makes this decision, in this case in terms of how
[ Page 2775 ]
they're allocating their surgeries, that they are doing it on a basis that is fully informed by what some of the costs may be by not doing certain of these procedures.

A. Dix: By definition, what VIHA has done — and the minister speaks for VIHA in this House — is increase the wait time by one year, because they've gone from 124 surgeries to roughly 52. They've gone back to the 2003-04 levels, and they've increased wait times by a full year. So, in effect, they've done what a doctor leaving the province might well do, which is to dramatically increase wait times.

I don't think anybody on those wait times here in B.C., who needs the surgery…. I know, like me, the minister meets with people in need of care all the time. I appreciate that he'll meet with people, and he'll understand their urgent need. In this case, VIHA is reducing its number of elective surgeries, as the minister will know, this year. A big part, a significant part of that reduction…. VIHA has suggested, I think, approximately 775 surgeries between now and the end of the fiscal year. Clearly, a significant portion of these, given the absolute number of bariatric surgeries that are done, are bariatric surgeries.

I want to emphasize with the minister — and I can share with him my correspondence, but I'm sure he gets correspondence as well — the dramatic effect on people's lives that this reduction in surgeries has. He talks about the evidence base. Where is VIHA's evidence base, again, given that these wouldn't be done in the public system if they weren't medically necessary?

Having met people, they're certainly very significant surgeries for people's health, overall health and well-being. Where is the evidence that an additional one-year wait time for bariatric surgery on Vancouver Island is supported by evidence? Where are the reports? Where is the evidence that suggests that that's the right decision?

Hon. K. Falcon: That's exactly why I met with Dr. Brad Amson. I wanted to hear directly from the surgeon that performs the vast majority of these cases what his views were on the subject. It's part of my process of trying to ensure that I'm fully informed, because I, too, received letters from patients. I met with a couple of patients. There are others that I knew personally that had brought this issue to my attention, so I wanted to hear from Dr. Amson directly.

It's one of the reasons why we are continuing to have a discussion with VIHA about this because I was trying to understand from VIHA's point of view that if they…. In fairness to VIHA, they make decisions about what kinds of surgeries they're going to do every year — how many cancer surgeries, how many hip surgeries, how many knee surgeries, cardiac, and the whole range of surgeries. Bariatric, gastric bypass surgeries for those who are severely obese are a category that they also made a decision on.

In this case, what I was curious about was if VIHA had fully considered what some of the costs that may present to the system in Vancouver Island as a result of not doing those procedures — to the member's point exactly. That's some information that I would still like to see before I fully can understand and support the decision that was made by VIHA.

I'm trying to keep an open mind on this and trying to make sure I am fully informed. Our staff continues to have a discussion with VIHA about that to allow me to fully understand the nature of the decision and what the rationale was behind the question of what those additional costs would be should some of these severely obese patients not receive the bariatric surgical procedures. If they are going to wait on the waiting list for a longer period of time, what would that mean in terms of additional other costs that may not be anticipated that may present themselves to the system?

[1600]

We'll try and get that information, and when I get that information, I think that will help me in my future discussions with VIHA.

A. Dix: I hesitate to ask the minister another question on the topic, because that response rather pleased me, having met with people. I appreciate that, and hopefully, the minister will keep especially MLAs on Vancouver Island….

On this issue the group has become very active around the question and justifiably so, because I don't think there's any group of people waiting for surgery in British Columbia that has been so dramatically affected by a single decision by a health authority in the next few months. There have been cuts to surgeries, as the minister will know, across health authorities, but this is a cut to surgery that singularly affects one particular wait-list in a dramatic way. Only maybe some of the MRI increases in wait times match it.

Because we're going to move on in the next little while, I just want to have a number of members talk about the Fraser Health Authority, including my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds. I want to check with the minister. I know he was getting some information for me on surgeries, on the hospital-by-hospital decisions on surgeries in Fraser Health, and I'm not sure if we've got that yet.

H. Bains: I want to ask the minister where we left last night when time ran out in the House. I was asking the minister about the long wait in the emergency rooms in the Surrey, Delta and White Rock region, where people have to wait hours and hours in order to get the health care treatment that they're in there for.

The minister went on to describe at great length what he describes as the good news about the expansion of the Surrey emergency room — he called it five times the size that we have today. Then he went on to talk about
[ Page 2776 ]
the other facility that is being built, called the ambulatory unit.

Yes, all those people are actually expecting to have those facilities built and expanded because of the community that we live in — the fastest-growing community in British Columbia, if not in Canada — and we do not have the health care services to meet that growing need. There's no wonder that people are waiting seven, eight, nine hours in the emergency room in order to get the treatment that they're in there for.

It's not good news for those people. Currently they're having to wait six, seven, eight hours in the emergency room. Yes, in the future that issue is being dealt with. They are really are disappointed with the minister's response and this government's response, past and present, because they continue to find excuses after excuses to tell people why they have to wait three, four, five years before that facility will be completed.

In this particular case, the emergency room was supposed to be completed in 2010. Now they're talking about 2014, which is three elections after the promise was made. That is not acceptable, and people in that region do not believe the reasons given by this minister and the previous minister, that the scope changed and that something else happened. Now they have to wait another four years.

My question to the minister is this. I would just add to what I was saying. This is one of the examples that I will use, and there are many. I could go on all night giving the minister example after example of how people are made to wait in those emergency rooms.

This letter was written to the minister by Mr. Sarnjit Singh Johal, who had to take his 16-year-old son to Peace Arch Hospital. His 16-year-old was in excruciating pain in the neck and the head. He's into some sports, and they felt that there might be some really serious internal issues.

[1605]

They went to the emergency at Peace Arch at 4:35 p.m. At 12:30 a.m. the next day was the first time they were seen by a qualified doctor, eight hours after they entered the emergency room. They went home at 1:40 without having a treatment done to them. Nine hours after, they gave up. Their son couldn't stay there any longer. The next day their doctor had to send them to another hospital in order to get the treatment done. This is one of the examples.

My question to the minister is this. As he talks about all the good news, what do you have to say to the patients like this, Mr. Johal's son and Mr. Johal, who had to wait there nine hours, and then they had to leave without even getting a treatment in the emergency ward at Peace Arch Hospital?

Hon. K. Falcon: The first thing the member should know is that he's part of an NDP caucus which while in government cut 500 acute care beds from the region. You should know that. Do your homework, and you'll discover that.

The member should also know that dealing with an issue around congestion at an emergency department is not something that gets fixed at any one facility. I tried to explain, in a recent discussion I had, that the health system is a system of care. That means, for example, when we build and invest $355 million in the Abbotsford Regional Hospital and Cancer Centre, that actually helps the entire delivery of health services across the region.

The member apparently is surprised by the fact that when you build a new multi-storey tower to the hospital at Surrey Memorial, expand the emergency department by over five times, add 48 neonatal care unit beds in the expanded facility…. Somehow that should all be done in one year. Now, I don't know what the member knows about construction, but I can tell you that that is a physical impossibility.

So if the member is going to talk nonsense, he should get his facts right. The fact of the matter is that when we announced the original expansion of the emergency department at the Surrey Memorial Hospital….

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm not sure why the member from Maple Ridge is piping up. This is the same member that saw his emergency department at Ridge Meadows Hospital tripled in size — tripled in size — and the member yaps away. That's rather remarkable.

Interjection.

The Chair: Order. Order.

Please continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: Thank you, Chair. The member will have his opportunity to ask questions. I hope that he does, but I'm speaking to the member for Surrey-Newton.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

When the original emergency department expansion was announced by government, something changed. What changed is we decided to do a much larger expansion, not just to the emergency department but, indeed, to build an entire new tower that would add hundreds more acute care beds to the system.

It included a new helipad. It included a whole range of additional services to ensure that we could in fact deal with exactly what that member is talking about, which is the increased predilection of individuals to show up and present at the emergency department, often for cases of relatively minor care issues.
[ Page 2777 ]

There's another thing that we also did as a government in addition to that announcement, which is moving forward; that is, we started construction on a new $239 million out-patient hospital that will be able to handle, if my memory serves me correctly, up to 400,000 visits annually.

For the benefit of that member, that means that there are 400,000 hospital visits that don't have to go through Surrey Memorial Hospital. That's actually a good thing. That means that they will go through a dedicated facility not even one block away from Surrey Memorial Hospital to receive the kind of day surgery and elective surgery procedures that they require in a very, very efficient manner. That is, again, a great addition that we are moving forward with.

You know, the member talks about progress. Apparently, the member doesn't see any progress. I don't know if he gets in his car. Apparently, he never drives down and sees the construction underway, but they've actually completed the roof on that facility now, and they're now shelling the inside of that $239 million out-patient facility.

[1610]

Then the member moves from that interesting series of questions over to one involving an individual that apparently had a bad experience at the Surrey Memorial Hospital. Now, first of all, I do think it's important that we note for the record that we have…. I think the last time, I heard the former Health Minister reference the fact that our emergency department sees somewhere in the range of almost two million visits annually in a province of just over four million people. I'll get the correct number if that's not entirely accurate, but that's the number I recall the previous Health Minister mentioning.

One of the things we know is that as the patients present themselves at an emergency department, they typically are triaged, and those with low acuity, as determined by the medical professionals at the facility, will sometimes have to wait longer to receive care than those that are of higher acuity.

In other words, someone presenting with a heart attack probably…. In fact, not probably — they will receive treatment immediately, for obvious reasons. Someone presenting with a sprained ankle or something that is a lesser level of acuity may have to wait some time if they are presenting at the hospital emergency department.

One of the reasons why we put together patient care quality offices in every single health authority was so that if there is an individual…. The member has mentioned an individual who apparently had a less than perfect experience at the emergency department. We set up these patient care quality offices exactly so that those individuals could go to that patient care quality office to have an opportunity to have their complaint reviewed and to determine whether the care and the medical care that was received by that particular patient was appropriate or not. That, I think, is the appropriate way in which those kinds of cases should be dealt with.

As the member can imagine, it is very difficult for any Minister of Health, even if the member ever found himself or herself in a position like that, to be able to respond to an individual, isolated case and to have a ready answer for the member during the course of estimates debate. It doesn't mean that the concerns that the individual expressed are not real. They could very well be real. But that, as I say, is why the patient care quality offices were put in place.

The individual, if they have a concern, if they don't believe that the medical professionals provided the level of treatment they felt was appropriate — in this case, for their child — can go to the patient care quality office to have that case reviewed.

If they're still not happy with the information from the patient care quality office, there's an opportunity for a review board to also look at that information.

Indeed, if they're unsatisfied with the response they get from the patient care quality office, then the patient care review board, which is made up of individuals, some that have medical backgrounds and others that are representatives from the community, can have the opportunity to review that complaint, determine what the decision of the patient care quality office was in terms of their review of the kind of care that the individual received and look and see whether that initial decision that was related to the family was appropriate or not.

That, in my view, provides an appropriate way of dealing with the unfortunate case of some individuals who will go through our system and not have an experience that they think is appropriate.

Having said that, I do want to just make the point, and I think it's a very important point to make, that our publicly funded health system, I believe, is one of the best systems in the world. I believe that it is one of the best systems in the country. I think that in any system that treats an enormously large amount of the population every single year, it's bound to be the case that it is not a perfect system. But I also think that you…. This is what I hear from the opposition often, where they try to find isolated circumstances to try and indict the entire system.

One of the things I know is that we have the best medical professionals delivering outstanding service in this province every day. I want the record to show that this is a Health Minister that appreciates the work they do — all of the folks that work hard in the system every single day to deliver the best possible service to British Columbians, and they do.

[1615]

H. Bains: I remember very vividly: "Health care when you need it, where you need it." That was 2001. Since that time eight years have gone by. In 2009 we're sitting here
[ Page 2778 ]
— announcement, another announcement, another announcement. In 2005, before the election: "Everything will be fast-tracked. We've done our homework. This is the project that will serve the need of the growing community of Surrey."

End of 2005: "We have done our homework, and now we will be expanding the ER. We will have an ambulatory unit that will be built, either on site or off site." The dollar amount, the capital money — all of that was given to the public with great fanfare.

I would think…. I would hope that the minister was a bit more respectful to the residents of that region, rather than calling their concerns brought here nonsense. Those are legitimate concerns. Those are the concerns brought to us, and I'm sure, to the minister's office day in and day out. This is not an isolated case. I just use that as one example.

If the minister wants, I could go through the list here. The minister asked me to drive by the new building being built. The roof is being put on. I have driven by it. Not own only that; I have gone into the emergency room myself. If the minister cares to hear about what goes on in that emergency ward, he probably should go and walk into that emergency room. He should sit there for a day and see what goes on, see what people have to go through.

Like I said yesterday, it's no reflection on the workers that actually are stretched out beyond their ability to manage the traffic that comes in there because of the lack of priority and the lack of direction by this minister and the previous minister.

So I come back to the minister again. Eight years have gone by. It's an excuse, and then there's another excuse as to why they have to wait three elections — three elections under this government — before they will see the emergency room expanded so that people can actually go in there and get the health care treatment that they need.

I asked that question, Minister, yesterday. What are you doing today so that when people and patients walk into the emergency rooms, they are actually seen by a qualified practitioner in a timely fashion?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, I have actually been through the emergency department. Apparently, when the member went through the emergency department, he didn't notice the almost $5 million of improvements that have already been done to the emergency department.

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: Sorry, Member, I think you had your chance to ask the question, so I'm now answering your question. Maybe the member for Surrey-Newton could allow me to answer the question before he starts piping up with another one.

The fact of the matter is that almost $5 million was already invested in the Surrey Memorial emergency department. What was it invested in? Well, it was invested in a minor treatment unit. Why? Because many of the individuals that present at the emergency department are individuals that require minor treatments, which do plug up the emergency department. There's no question. It's one of the reasons why that $5 million was invested.

It's also one of the reasons why there is a new $239 million out-patient hospital less than a block away from the Surrey Memorial that's currently under construction.

I mean, I'm fascinated. I'm not sure what the member's background…. My recollection is that the member was a union leader. I don't think that he had background in the construction and development and building of projects, but I can tell the member that it actually takes more than just saying "Make it built," and it appears.

You actually have to go through a process of putting a design together, work with the design group, work with the surgeons and the administrators of the hospital, make sure you get it right. Then you have to go for the request for qualifications to make sure that the people that are planning on bidding on building the project have the appropriate skill set and ability to do the project.

Then you move to an RFP process, where you go through a competitive process to select, ultimately, who will be the successful proponent to build the project. That's how it works, Member. It doesn't happen in two weeks. I'm sorry to disappoint the member.

[1620]

Maybe that's how we ended up…. In fact, that's how we ended up with the fast ferry disaster — because they actually didn't do a business plan. They decided they could build it themselves and that they would just plunge forward. Well, we're not plunging forward and doing things without making sure the appropriate work's been done. I know that is a challenge to the member opposite, but it's the appropriate way.

Again, the member says he walked through the emergency department. Okay. He happened to miss the $5 million that was invested in that department. That's already in place. But maybe the member could continue his walk right out the front doors, go about a half a block, and see the new hospital under construction. I think that might actually help the member.

Then what the member could do is have a look at the request for proposals that have gone out on the new tower that is going to be built at Surrey Memorial and the expansion of the emergency department to five times beyond what it is. The member will know, if he takes a look at that RFP, that it has gone through a request-for-qualifications process to ensure, again, that the groups that are bidding on that process have the background, the experience and the financial fortitude to be able to complete the project. It's important we do that.
[ Page 2779 ]

It's important that we go through a competitive RFP to make sure we get the best possible value for British Columbians. We did the same process for the Abbotsford Regional Hospital and Cancer Centre. That's probably why it was delivered on schedule and on budget. We want the same thing to happen as we invest up to $600 million in the new tower at Surrey Memorial Hospital. The member should inform himself of that information. I think that if he does, he will be pleased with the result.

The final thing I will say is with respect to the specific individual that the member referenced. I understand, informed by ministry staff, that on the day that individual presented with their child, there was a large surge of patients between three o'clock and five o'clock on the day in question. What happened was….

There is a Canadian standard for triage. When you have a large number of patients entering into an emergency department, what happens is that they typically triage those patients to determine that those with the highest level of acuity are dealt with first. They utilize the Canadian acuity triage, which is a nationally recognized scale, to assess patient needs. They then prioritize based on the level of acuity.

I should let the member know that we did respond to the individual in question and referred the individual, as I suggested to the member, to the patient care quality office so that if the individual had further concerns, they could contact the patient care quality office where they will undertake a review of the service that the medical professionals provided for their child.

If that is still not acceptable to the individual, there is a review board that can also review the response that the individuals received from the patient quality office.

R. Chouhan: My question is not controversial or confrontational at all. In fact, it's a request on behalf of my constituent, and I have her consent to release her name and other particulars, if necessary, to the minister. Her name is Anna Louisa Tenorio.

Anna and her husband moved to B.C. from Saskatchewan on October 16. She is eight months pregnant. She's from Mexico and only received her work permit on October 1. They did not apply for medical for her in Saskatchewan because they were moving. Her husband moves around a lot for work and has always had his medical coverage from the province of Quebec. Anna has never lived in Quebec so is not eligible for coverage from that province. She needs to have some kind of medical coverage, because they cannot afford to pay hospital fees for the baby's birth.

I'm requesting of the minister if there's anything that can be done through the ministry or whether anybody can contact Anna. I can provide the name and address and phone number.

[1625]

Hon. K. Falcon: If the member hasn't shared the information with us, he could certainly do so. I think the challenge that I see here immediately, though, Member, is that the individual, if I understood the question right, certainly would not have met the residency requirements that are set out in terms of receiving publicly funded medical care.

The residency requirements, of course, are that you are a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident that has lived in B.C. for at least the last three months. I think I heard the member say that the individual is from Mexico. We will need to get that information from the member, but I assume the member would understand that our publicly funded health system, which is under stress, as the member knows, even with 20 percent increases….

I'm not suggesting the member is saying that we don't have a residency requirement, but it sounds to me like this individual doesn't meet that residency requirement. I would need to have all of the information before I could have staff make that final determination.

R. Chouhan: I appreciate the minister for that answer, and I'll make sure that my office contacts your office, and we will provide information. Hopefully, somebody will contact Anna and explain the system or whatever could be done about it.

My other question is about the spiritual care service providers. Within the last couple of weeks 12 acute care spiritual care practitioners and the regional director for spiritual care services have been dismissed from employment within the Fraser Health Authority. Health care is not just patching people up and getting them removed from the hospital bed as soon as possible. To have a holistic approach to health care, an approach that includes a focus on the body, mind and spirit of a person, is very important.

In many unfortunate situations, I'm sure the minister is aware, a patient in their last moment of life and their families need a spiritual care professional to be with them. My question is: does the minister not believe that the spiritual part of the recovery is important? Will the minister make sure that this important service continues in our health care facilities?

Hon. K. Falcon: I understand that the spiritual care coordination that was undertaken at the — I believe it's a dozen — facilities in Fraser Health…. Under the change that was implemented by Fraser Health, the work is now going to be undertaken by the volunteer coordinators that are also at every one of those 12 facilities.

Hospital-based social workers will continue to provide emotional support for patients and families in extreme need, including grief counselling. Fraser Health is working with the faith communities to encourage more volunteers from the various faith communities, all faith communities.

[1630]
[ Page 2780 ]

As you know, increasingly we're seeing much change in the ethnic makeup of communities, so there's a large number of different faith communities out there. Fraser Health is going to work with the different faith communities to increase their visitations and access and volunteerism.

Spiritual care is still a very important part of our system. I think that it's a key part of our system because I would agree that holistically, we want to ensure that we look after the needs of those that are ill in as total a way as possible.

I think the challenge that Fraser Health finds themselves in is that in an era where almost a 20 percent budget increase over the next three years…. They still find themselves facing pressures. They are attempting to deal with that as best they can, and that's why they are having the volunteer care coordinators assume some of the previous duties that were undertaken by the spiritual care coordinators to work with faith communities to try and encourage more volunteers to come into the hospital and make sure that they've got ready and easy access to all the facilities, to work with the patients from their respective faith communities.

R. Chouhan: I understand the minister and the Fraser Health Authority are trying to do whatever they can. But the problem here is that these professionals are trained to function effectively and with great sensitivity within the multicultural and multifaith milieu found within the Fraser Health Authority.

It's a different kind of work. It's not asking a pastor or a priest or a temple priest to come and hold their hand. It's a different kind of work. They have been doing it for so long. Pastoral services is hardly the place to cut costs, Minister, in times like these, when people are stressed because of loss of employment.

Given that most of these professionals are working part-time, I will ask the minister again to reconsider and let these people continue to provide the very important service that we need in our health care facilities.

Hon. K. Falcon: These are very important services. I would acknowledge that to the member. But again, I think the challenge is that we have a health system that even with a 20 percent budget increase is still stressed to find ways to manage the pressures of increased use of the system.

They are attempting to work with the faith communities to encourage those from faith communities to be able to volunteer and have ready and easy access to the health care facilities. They will have their volunteer care coordinators to be able to manage that. We continue to work with Fraser Health to make sure that they do that appropriately.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

A. Dix: I was impressed by that. I was looking down and was a little concerned over there.

The cuts to pastoral care are combined, in that case, with very significant cuts to social workers. I think it's 15.5 FTEs spread out through Fraser Health hospitals.

I think the issue in part is this. The minister will know that increasingly, people have a shorter and shorter stay in hospital. Fraser Health has, amongst health authorities in the country, one of the smallest — I think maybe the lowest — ratio of acute care beds to population of any jurisdiction in the country.

Some of the important work that is done in this context and that will be missed when you cut social workers and pastoral care is the sense in hospitals of the assistance…. First of all, nurses and others — it's not an issue of their being qualified — simply don't have the time to pick up this work, so it's going to increase the burden and pressure on an already pressured acute care system.

I wanted to ask the minister…. It seems to me that this combination of cuts to pastoral care on the one hand and the social workers on the other hand, while they may seem like targets, in fact are problematic in a health care system that is increasingly placing a priority on the speed of service.

[1635]

I wanted to ask the minister whether he thought, in retrospect, that Fraser Health made the right choices here, that these very large FTE cuts in those two areas that in some respects are linked are not potentially damaging and will not have significant damages — not just, I would suggest to the minister, to the immediate work that's done by social workers and pastoral care workers with patients, but also on the functioning of the hospital.

The Chair: Committee A will recess for five minutes. We'll report back at 4:45.

The committee recessed from 4:36 p.m. to 4:46 p.m.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

A. Dix: I just asked the minister the question about social workers, in addition to the pastoral care question.

Hon. K. Falcon: With respect to the social workers, my understanding is that they haven't yet made a decision about reducing the number of social workers. I understand that Fraser Health has been meeting with the union which represents these positions to try and explore ways in which the savings could be realized without having to impact on staffing levels. I believe that those discussions are still underway.

I know that they are mitigating it in part by not filling some of the vacancies that they currently have out there. I understand that those discussions are still under-
[ Page 2781 ]
way with the union, and I am not at this point aware of where or if they have reached a conclusion on those discussions.

A. Dix: So the target of 15.5 FTEs, I think it was, was a target in terms of expenditure reduction, some of which would made up by not filling FTEs, and some would be made up by layoffs. The proposal would be that other options be presented from the union.

Just a very quick question, and then we'll move to my colleague from Surrey-Fleetwood. Can the minister just tell us how much the health authorities paid this year and are budgeting next year for carbon offsets?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised by staff that the estimated cost of carbon offsets for all of the health authorities will be in the range of $6.4 million on an annualized basis.

J. Brar: I would like to ask a few questions about the funding allocation for H1N1. I don't know whether the minister has the staff available for that or not, but I will probably start with my first question.

My understanding is that the total specific allocation to deal with H1N1 is about $80 million. I would like to ask the minister if he can provide the details of that $80 million, as to where that money is going to go.

[1650]

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is correct, in that this year's budget included an additional $80 million specifically to deal with the H1N1 pandemic. The cost of that would go towards the following. We pay 40 percent of the cost of purchasing the vaccine. The federal government pays the balance. We pay 100 percent of the vaccine administration and the distribution and other costs associated with that. We pay for the cost of the antiviral drugs, which we currently hold in a stockpile that will have to occasionally be replenished. That's the Tamiflu.

There are other costs, including antibiotics; additional flu vaccination costs associated with doctors having to perform the vaccinations in their offices; and also the additional costs to pay the doctors to do telephone consults, which is a new and unique feature that we included as part of their fee schedule — in this case, during this pandemic, to ensure that people could phone their doctors and receive advice as opposed to showing up in person and perhaps infecting others. Also, there were 25 additional ventilators that were ordered to help deal with those patients that ran into severe respiratory issues associated with H1N1.

J. Brar: Thanks to the minister for the response. Is it possible at this stage to provide the dollar figure for each category that the minister is talking about? I understand the percentage, but the percentage does not tell, really, how much money that would be. So if the minister can provide a dollar figure for each category that the minister has just mentioned.

[1655]

Hon. K. Falcon: The short answer is: no, we couldn't. The reason is that we're still dealing with the pandemic, so many of these costs are still underway. We're still seeing, obviously, doctors that are administering the vaccinations. We're still seeing the telephone consults. We're still seeing the use and utilization of the antivirals and the vaccines. We just don't have that information at our fingertips in the midst of the pandemic itself.

J. Brar: My understanding is, then, that when you allocate an $80 million budget figure, there must be some sort of tentative budget plan for that, which includes the figures. There must be some proposed figures somewhere, so if the minister can provide that. If that is not also available, I would like to ask the minister: what portion of that money went to health authorities?

[J. McIntyre in the chair.]

Hon. K. Falcon: Staff advised me that one of the big challenges in preparing for the H1N1 pandemic is that we kept evolving the learning process as we were going along and as we were designing the system. Initially, for example, we thought, based on some of the evidence that we had heard from around the world, that there would be a requirement for two doses of vaccine to deal with the H1N1 pandemic. We now have learned subsequent to that that one dose will do. That certainly was a change, an example of a change.

We also thought we would have to do separate clinics for the H1N1 virus. That was the initial thought as we were looking at laying out the plan of how we would deal with this. We now find that we can actually undertake regular flu shots and H1N1 pandemic vaccinations at the same time. Initially, the thought was that you wouldn't be able to do that.

Part of the initial planning that went into it was really predicated, certainly, on the worst-case scenario. You always have to plan for the worst. Since that time we've seen some things that have worked out better for us — for example, having to use only one dose instead of two doses. Other things may have worked out somewhat worse for us. My understanding is that we feel pretty good that we're on track, certainly, to stay within the $80 million that was budgeted for the H1N1 pandemic.

[1700]

J. Brar: Madam Chair, welcome to the session.

I appreciate the information, and I understand the complexity around the issue of H1N1 budgetary figures. Somebody came up with a figure of $80 million, which
[ Page 2782 ]
is a definite figure of $80 million. Can the minister provide some details as to how the minister arrived at the figure of $80 million — based on what factors?

Hon. K. Falcon: In determining what the appropriate level of the budget was, it was informed from a number of sources. Certainly, based on the experience in other jurisdictions — that helped to guide us. It was also based on information from not only the chief provincial health officer but other medical health professionals across the province.

It was also informed, in part, by the experience we had dealing with the SARS epidemic. The member may recall that British Columbia really was commended for how well we handled the SARS epidemic, where we managed to avoid some of the challenges that other jurisdictions like Ontario experienced when trying to deal with SARS.

I guess the really good news about this story is that we have a very robust and professional group of individuals across the province of British Columbia that have very successfully navigated and guided us through these kinds of epidemics in the past. I think, certainly, the evidence we have seen thus far demonstrates that once again, the medical professionals have really risen to the occasion and are doing a very exceptional job in managing our way through this particular pandemic.

But as I say, Member, all of those experiences helped inform the professionals within the Ministry of Health when it came to determining a guesstimate — really, it is a guesstimate — of what the appropriate budget amount should be to deal with the H1N1 pandemic.

As I said earlier to the member, we have to, by the very nature of this business, really make sure that the dollars we provide are predicated around the worst-case experience, because we have to ensure that should we see the worst-case-experience end of the spectrum with regard to something like the H1N1 pandemic, we certainly want to be ready for it. I think that the experience thus far, as I say, is that the medical health professionals have really done a very good job in managing the pandemic.

J. Brar: So what portion of that funding allocation of $80 million went to different health authorities? Or will it go to health authorities, and for what purpose?

[1705]

Hon. K. Falcon: As we were discussing earlier, what happens is that the province, through the $80 million that we added to the budget this year for H1N1, pays for the really significant issues that are involved here. We don't have the health authorities, for example, pay for the vaccine. We don't have them pay for the additional ventilators. We don't have them pay for the Tamiflu, for example.

Where they are responsible for the costs are the costs of vaccinating the individuals. That's something that they do, obviously, in the normal course of their operations as health authorities. There would probably be additional costs in the emergency departments, for example, and perhaps in the ICUs, temporarily, in dealing with these things. That is something that, of course, they deal with whether it's seasonal flu, whether it's H1N1 or whatever the health issue may be.

J. Brar: I have heard the Premier and the minister saying constantly and repeatedly that this is the largest vaccination program we have had in the country, which means that this needs a lot of resources to administer the vaccine program when you talk about H1N1. Having said that, my understanding is that this will be a huge additional burden on the health authorities.

Having listened to what the minister said, will the minister confirm, then, that there's not even a penny more when it comes to the administration of this immunization program for H1N1 and that there will be no additional dollars to the health authorities out of $80 million?

Hon. K. Falcon: Look, Member, our approach is consistent with every other province in the country. This is how you undertake these things. The health system is quite used to dealing with the various issues that may come, whether it's SARS or H1N1 pandemic or flu season or whatever the case may be. They're aware of that, and they deal with that. They manage that and how they allocate staff to deal with whatever the latest health issue that may sort of come and go through these different pandemics or flu viruses or what have you.

What we did is what every other province did. I think most of the provinces…. We may have gone further in some cases, actually, in picking up some additional costs — for example, the telephone consults that doctors are reimbursed for to provide to patients with H1N1. I'm not sure that's something that's undertaken in every province.

Look, we agreed to pay for all the costs of the vaccine, all the costs for the additional 25 ventilators that were ordered just in case those needed to be utilized for the H1N1 pandemic, and we agreed to pick up all the costs of the Tamiflu and all the additional costs with respect to having doctors provide those vaccinations in their offices or do the telephone consults.

My understanding is that that's entirely consistent, with the possible exception that we may have done one or two more things than other provinces may have done. Certainly, the baseline in terms of what the provinces…. What role and responsibility and financial obligation they undertook is very much consistent right across the country.

J. Brar: I'll take it that the minister confirmed that there's no additional funding going to the health authority as far as the administration of the H1N1 vaccine is concerned. I understand that.

[1710]
[ Page 2783 ]

I don't know where we stand when we talk about the comparison with other provinces, but the question here was pretty simple. Out of $80 million, nothing is going towards the health authority.

My last question to the minister will be: out of this $80 million, how much funding has been allocated for a public relations campaign to educate the public?

Hon. K. Falcon: We didn't allocate dollars for a public relations campaign through the Ministry of Health. The only additional dollars we allocated were to add additional phone lines to the 811 HealthLink line because we anticipated that there was going to be additional usage of the 811 line, which is exactly what happened, of course, as information started to get out about the H1N1 pandemic through the media.

More and more people were phoning to find out what that meant to them. Should they be immunized? What does it mean for pregnant women, and what about their kids? There were lots and lots of very, very good questions that were being addressed.

I guess the good news in all of this, to a certain extent, is that the media provided an enormous amount of coverage on this issue, which really did probably far more than any public relations campaign that we could have even considered in terms of getting the word out about the H1N1 pandemic. Obviously, it's a bit of a double-edged sword sometimes when you get that kind of media coverage, because you don't want it to scare people unnecessarily.

I think the media was also reporting accurately that this was a different pandemic, in the sense that some of the typical victims of the pandemic were very different from what you would normally see in a flu season, where normally it's people with severely compromised immune systems or the elderly that are impacted. In this case you sometimes had young, healthy individuals that would find themselves in respiratory distress, up to and including losing their life. So there was lots of free media that certainly advertised the H1N1 pandemic.

Staff have advised me, Member, that they believe there was a federal-provincial agreement to have consistent messaging around what the messaging should be in terms of preventative measures — you know, washing hands, coughing into sleeves, etc. — to ensure that everybody was messaging consistently in that regard.

[1715]

There may have been posters — we're not sure at our end — and we believe that that was financed by the Public Health Agency of Canada. Again, I want to caution that I'm not entirely certain about that, but that's sort of the belief in this ministry. I can confirm that no dollars for those public relations–type purposes came out of the $80 million budget.

J. Brar: Can the minister then tell me: who should I contact to find those figures and the right information in the provincial government?

Hon. K. Falcon: Member, just to make sure, because I'm not entirely sure we understood what the member is asking for…. Maybe the easiest way to deal with this is if the member could just send us a little note outlining exactly what information he's looking for and a number that he wants attached to it.

Then once we have that information, we'll be able to figure out where we go — whether it's the Public Health Agency of Canada or public affairs bureau or whatever department may be responsible. If the member could just cooperate in getting that over to us in terms of specifically what he's looking for, we'll certainly get that information for him.

D. Black: The questions I would like to ask pertain to my community in New Westminster, under the Fraser Health Authority. Fraser Health is attempting to deal with a $160 million budget shortfall. Actually, that has meant numerous cuts to front-line health care services in New Westminster. It appears to me that New Westminster has been particularly hard hit by these cuts that have been announced week after week.

When the government chose a number of years ago to shut down St. Mary's Hospital, which had been delivering a lot of health care services into our community, one of the services that had been at St. Mary's Hospital was the hospice. When the government decided to shut down St. Mary's, they made a commitment to the people of New Westminster that the hospice services would be retained in our community. They were opened again. An eight-bed hospice unit was opened at Queen's Park Care Centre.

Now it appears that this was just a stopgap kind of a promise, because now we're told that the hospice at Queen's Park will be closed. That comes after a lot of community fundraising to bring some of the amenities into the Queen's Park Hospital.

People in New Westminster are feeling, well, a sense of actual betrayal on that, since the whole idea of hospice care is to have care that's close to home where family members — the spouse, an older spouse of a dying person in the hospice — can visit and spend time with their loved one who is dying. Now this service is going to be moved out of our community.

It's going to be a real hardship on people in New Westminster, particularly older families. They will have to look for taxi fare, transportation. It won't be as convenient or as simple, and the care will no longer be in the community.

I would like to ask the minister what the rationale is. After making the commitment a few years ago to retain these hospice beds in New Westminster, what are
[ Page 2784 ]
the criteria that have been used to remove from New Westminster any hospice care?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think the member might be interested to know that actually, we've quadrupled the number of hospice beds since 2001 in the province of British Columbia. Interestingly, in the Fraser Health region, when we first got elected in 2001, there was a grand total of absolutely zero hospice and tertiary palliative care beds in the Fraser Health region. There were none. Today I'm pleased to say that we now have 96 hospice beds and 30 palliative care beds in Fraser Health.

[1720]

The member raises the question of Queen's Park Centre and why that eight-bed hospice unit is being closed and phased out in New Westminster. I'm informed by staff that the Queen's Park Centre eight-bed hospice unit was underutilized and that almost half of the clients were actually from communities outside of New Westminster. You had a situation where the patients that were receiving hospice care were not even from the community of New Westminster.

What's happening is that we're opening up new hospice services in those communities where the patient demand is closer. There's going to be, for example, a new ten-bed hospice opening in Delta early next year to support the growing needs in that community. There are going to be ten beds in the palliative care unit at Peace Arch Hospital that are being converted to hospice beds as part of a transition that will see these beds eventually move into the new ten-bed, stand-alone hospice residence built next to the Peace Arch Hospital.

What is happening is that there is actually a net increase in hospice beds. The good news here is that we've now gone — from in 2001, when we first got elected — from zero hospice beds in Fraser Health to over 100 hospice beds in the coming month. That's an achievement that, certainly, we're very proud of.

D. Black: Well, thank you for the response. I guess, perhaps, that when the minister says people are coming from other communities to access hospice beds in New Westminster, he may be talking about people crossing 10th Avenue from Burnaby into New Westminster and not the kind of distance that will be in place now for people in New Westminster, who will need to travel across the river and across the bridge and into communities that are quite a long distance away from New Westminster to access hospice care.

At the same time that the hospice beds are closing, there are another 25 convalescent care beds that are being eliminated at Queen's Park. We know that there is an acute shortage of residential care beds and that people are being held in emergency wards as they wait for a bed in a residential care facility.

I fail to understand and want to ask the minister: why would you close these beds and move highly trained staff that have been there for a number of years, when these beds could be used for residential care in New Westminster?

Hon. K. Falcon: Just to finish up on that last discussion. From zero hospice beds under ten years of an NDP government to 96 today. By the time we're finished opening up the new beds, we will be at, I believe — I want to make sure I get the number right — 108 hospice beds now serving Fraser Health, up from 96.

In the case of the convalescent care unit, the member is correct that there is a transition in staffing to what we call PATH units. These are patient assessment and transition-to-home units.

[1725]

The kind of staffing for these PATH units changes, because these are individuals that don't require the acute care level of patient care that you would typically see in an acute care setting. They don't require the RNs or the doctors. They may require LPNs, licensed practical nurses, and care aides that can appropriately deal with those individuals as they go through their patient assessment and are transitioned.

Not all of them, by the way, go to residential care facilities. Some of them, depending on their individual circumstances — that's why they go through the assessment process — are transitioned back into their home setting, perhaps with supports. Others may end up in a residential care facility. That's a possibility. Again, what they're doing is making sure that the staff that are servicing those patients in the PATH unit are staff with the appropriate skill level for the kind of patients that they're looking after.

Certainly, I would think one of the things we would want to do when we are in an era where even a 20 percent budget increase is still not enough in the health system is that we would certainly want to make sure that those medical professionals in the health system are working to their scope of duty and practice. That also means making sure that we don't have medical professionals, with their skill set and their abilities, providing service for patients that require a lower level of care, which would be more than adequate for them.

That's the change. I know the member likes to use the word "cuts." It's not a cut. It's a change, and it's an appropriate change to reflect the nature of these patient assessment and transition-to-home units.

D. Black: Well, no matter how you frame it, it's a loss of health care services in my community, in New Westminster.

The other item that's being cut from the Fraser Health budget is the budget for social workers and the budget for hospital chaplains who provide support and care for
[ Page 2785 ]
families and for the very ill and the dying. They've all been eliminated.

I'd like to ask the minister: who will fill this void in services at Royal Columbian Hospital and other hospitals in the region — this kind of support that's only provided by social workers and hospital chaplains?

Hon. K. Falcon: We canvassed this already previously, Member. That's okay. The member wasn't here, so it's not her fault. It's probably best to just go right to Hansard, because we had an opportunity, and I do want to make sure that all the members have their opportunities.

D. Black: Okay. Another issue that is unique, I think, to Fraser Health region is the New Westminster domestic violence response team. That was initially cut out. The funding for the counsellor to that program was initially cut from the budget. This is a program that works in cooperation with the New Westminster police department.

The domestic violence response team was a unique program formulated in New Westminster that actually has been used as a prototype for other regions in the province and in the country. It's been a very successful program that has targeted the women and children at the highest risk for domestic violence.

After an outcry by the community — a large outcry by the community and articles in the media — it was announced by your government that the Solicitor General would take over the funding of the counsellor for this program until the end of the fiscal year.

I'd like to ask the minister whether he's had an opportunity to discuss with the Solicitor General where the funding for the counsellor will come from for the budget year 2011 and beyond. I'd like some assurances that this program will continue in its very successful format, which has protected the lives of numerous women and children in my community.

Hon. K. Falcon: Member, I must confess that I was perplexed, initially, when I found that there was a position of domestic violence response counsellor that was being funded through the Ministry of Health. I was a little surprised initially when I heard that.

[1730]

I think the member is correct in pointing out that the Solicitor General did take the initiative to continue the funding. I think it's entirely appropriate. That strikes me as being the appropriate ministry in which to fund domestic violence response counsellors — very important positions, very important duties but certainly more associated with the Ministry of Solicitor General as opposed to the Ministry of Health.

I can tell the member that I haven't had an opportunity to sit down and have a discussion with the Solicitor General, and I'm not sure whether it was canvassed or not during the estimates of the Solicitor General. When I have an opportunity, I will have that discussion with the Solicitor General. I am not certain what commitments he made in terms of funding. I know he committed to fund the program, and I'm not sure of the time frame in which he's committed to fund it in the out-years.

N. Macdonald: Just two questions. One will be on the ambulance stations.

Related to the Revelstoke ambulance station, I had been personally assured by B.C. Ambulance — and this was post-election — that the project would go ahead in the fall. I understand that that was something that couldn't happen. The paramedics in the community have been very patient over the past four years, waiting for the facility. It's something that the city has done its job on, and it has put the land aside.

I guess one question that I would have for the minister is just…. It has been delayed twice. My understanding is that it will proceed in the spring. I would appreciate assurance of that from the minister.

Then the second ambulance station issue is around the Golden ambulance station. It is many months now that Golden paramedics have been out of that station because of a mould issue. As winter sets in, in Golden, the use of a motel, which is currently what the paramedics are using, becomes more and more complicated. There are complications about keeping the ambulance ready to go, and there are also complications with materials that are in the truck that are going to be damaged by freezing and so on.

Those two issues — if the minister could just give an update on both of them, I'd appreciate it very much.

[1735]

Hon. K. Falcon: The member would know that — I'm sorry; I'm speaking of Revelstoke first, for the benefit of the member — in March of last year the Ambulance Service completed the purchase of that city-owned land for the station. We have granted capital approval for the project to move forward. Planning work is now underway. My understanding is that they expect tenders to be issued on the project early in the new year and construction to begin by spring of next year with respect to Revelstoke.

With respect to Golden, the member is correct. The paramedics are currently temporarily located at a motel. I understand that they're addressing the mould problem, which I believe the member referenced. The remediation is underway.

I've also been informed that they have now discovered an additional requirement. It may require the replacement of the heating-ventilation, air-conditioning system in the facility. I understand we are trying to quantify what that cost is going to be and make a decision. I think it's likely we're going to have to do it, regardless of whether we want to or not, but I think that we're in the midst of quantifying that cost.
[ Page 2786 ]

N. Macdonald: Certainly, the communities involved will be very much looking forward to those facilities being fixed or being built — Revelstoke in particular. It's been four years now.

I'll just leave with the minister one of the issues that was there for Revelstoke and will be there for Golden. Obviously, the ambulances have to be cleared of snow — and things like that. Very often the people that are out doing that are told they shouldn't be doing it because they're not covered by workers compensation.

That's anecdotally what I've heard, but it's just one of the many, many tiny little issues that sit with the minister to figure out. It is a service with many complicated pieces for the rural paramedics. I leave that with you. I know you've heard that from many people and heard it over the full night, but it's one that I'll leave with you. It's something that needs to be fixed.

One other thing that I'll quickly move to is just that we had the discussion about Norm Gagatek in the House. It refers to a gentleman who had a stroke. This is a young man, and he receives a service in Invermere. Now he's with a young family. The service has changed.

I certainly don't want to redebate the issue, but I do leave with you that there are still ongoing concerns. I know that the IHA is working to meet the needs of the family and to meet the needs of seniors in the area, but there are ongoing concerns about how that works and whether the needs for the gentleman are going to be met. I also know that the family is looking at other options, but I'll leave that with the minister, again, simply so that he can keep track of that issue. It's one.

Then the second one. Here again, I know it's been an issue that has already been debated during these estimates, but I'll raise it again. It's just around the cuts to the seniors day programs. I think it's an argument that has already been made, but certainly in Revelstoke, while the percentages of use may be fairly low, there are a number of people that depend upon the service for the full five days. To reduce it to three days makes it complicated in a way that perhaps using the percentage wouldn't indicate.

What we very often find in rural settings — and it's not just with health, but it's with education and other things — is very often you don't have the economies of scale. To have a service that's 100 percent used all the time is a difficult thing to attain. Small changes in the number of people can mean that a program that's necessary sometimes looks, for a short period of time, like it's underutilized, and it isn't. I leave that with the minister as well.

[1740]

He can certainly comment back on both those issues, but I don't mean to force him to go through a repeat of a debate that he's already had.

Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate the member bringing those two issues to my attention. With respect to the issue of Mr. Gagatek, that was certainly a heart-moving story. The challenge that that individual and his wife are having to deal with, no doubt, would be just an enormous challenge for anyone. Having had a family member that has gone through the challenges of losing their speech through a health issue, something that affected my father, I can certainly understand the difficulty that this must cause, not just to Mr. Gagatek himself but obviously his wife and broader family.

One of my staff pointed out to me that the area of speech pathology is probably one of the most difficult areas in which to attract individuals and to meet the demand of individuals, particularly in rural communities, which as the member points out is sometimes even more of a challenge. As we are trying to meet this challenge in a number of areas, one of the ways that increasingly we're going to see us meet the challenges for folks in rural B.C. is through the new technology of video conferencing.

We've started to see that where today folks — in northern B.C., for example — who have requirements or could benefit from the requirements of a specialist consult that maybe has that specialty only in the Lower Mainland, can now with their physician or specialist in the north, through video teleconferencing, have the ability to receive a consult from expertise that may not be readily available.

If Mr. Gagatek's family is still not happy with the manner in which they're trying to provide that service…. I understand Interior Health has been working to make sure they meet the needs of the individual and their family. If that is still a problem, then I'd appreciate the member making me aware of that, and we will try to help realize ways to try and improve on that.

But I do have to say that it is very, very challenging in our health system, particularly trying to get that personalized service for every single patient in every single case that they need. I think the health authority, recognizing the real challenge of identifying, retaining and keeping speech pathologists, are trying to utilize their skill set through the video conferencing means.

I know that is new and it's different and it sounds less than acceptable to the individuals. I know they're trying hard to meet the needs of the individual. But if there are ways to improve upon that, certainly we can try and look into that.

In terms of the seniors day programs, the member is right. We did have an opportunity to canvass this the other day.

[1745]

This is a tough one, because I think that the member is right when he points out that in rural communities there sometimes is a challenge just because there are not a lot of people that might be utilizing the services. You have that conflicting with the health authority trying to make sure that they deliver the service in a manner
[ Page 2787 ]
that is respectful of the fact that we don't have unlimited dollars.

I use the example in Merritt where there are two seniors that are participating in the program there, and of course, you've got staff resources for 1½ FTEs, if my memory serves me correctly, to cover the two individuals who are receiving the care and the service.

What they are trying to do by going from five days to four days is to, hopefully, improve the utilization so that there are enough seniors present in those day programs to make sense, obviously, of the staff resources that are being allocated to help provide these very important services.

I do know that Interior Health is committed to making sure that if there are things that they can learn or ways they can improve, aside from the obvious just continue doing it the way we always did it, because I don't think that's…. In fact, I can say honestly that I just don't think that's realistic on a go-forward basis. Because in the case of Interior Health, where their 20 percent budget increase still isn't enough, they are trying to make sure that they are being as responsible as they can with the dollars.

I certainly take the member's concern about the unique situation in rural B.C. I do think they're trying to address it, but we'll continue to monitor that and work with Interior Health to ensure they do it in the manner that best meets the needs, obviously, of their budget reality and also the patients that are looking for continued good care.

A. Dix: I think in this case of Mr. Gagatek, though, the service was available. It was essentially a budget decision, and it's kind of where the rubber meets the road in terms of those budget decisions, because the cost is enormous and the potential cost for the health care system is enormous. The progress that had been made was very moving, and I know that the minister has heard the story and knows how important those services are in that community.

I want to ask the minister a short question on behalf of my colleague from Surrey-Whalley, who is otherwise engaged in the other chamber. It's about methadone clinics in Surrey. In particular, and the minister will know this, I have some examples of this in my community where there's been an effort in a general sense to diversify the number of methadone clinics so that there are not single methadone clinics that cause problems.

In fact, it's often a healthy thing when methadone is distributed in pharmacies that are full-service and distribute other things. It brings a degree of normalcy to the lives of the people getting the methadone, and it is also a better way — won't argue — of distributing it.

However, the minister will know, because he lives in Surrey, and I know, because I live in Vancouver-Kingsway, that there are many pharmacies — at least a number of pharmacies, particularly in north Surrey — that are methadone-only pharmacies — not exclusively in north Surrey, but in north Surrey. And there have been real concerns expressed about some of the activities around these pharmacies by the Downtown Surrey BIA, amongst many others, many people in the community.

I guess that the question is…. What they have said is that the College of Pharmacists has been remarkably slow to respond to what they believe are very carefully documented and expressed concerns.

I'm wondering if the minister has heard about these concerns and if the government has any actions that it is considering bringing to bear on a situation which, sometimes, in some neighbourhoods, can become very serious and detrimental to community safety during a methadone program that is needed and required and an essential part of a public health care response to a drug crisis.

[1750]

The concern, I think, is methadone-only pharmacies and concerns raised not by the north Surrey but the Downtown Surrey BIA, I think is what it's called, and specifically concerns about activities around those pharmacies. I think this is an issue that we face often, and there are real concerns in Surrey. There is in my community, too, so it's not just Surrey. There are some real concerns there. If the minister has heard about it, if he has any actions he may want to take, because the college has been a little slow in responding.

Hon. K. Falcon: Member, I had the opportunity to meet with the Whalley BIA probably some months ago now to talk about issues they wanted to address. Now, this issue didn't come up. That doesn't mean because it's not important to them, but the issue they were more interested in talking to me about was trying to get some provincial funding for the library and the whole development of Surrey Central there, and I'm pleased to say that we were successful in doing so.

Staff have advised that they haven't heard complaints specifically from the business community with respect to the methadone-only clinics. I suspect it's probably similar to the challenge that VIHA had when they were trying to find a location for the needle exchange clinics in terms of what the community reaction is.

In this case these facilities are in place, and it sounds like some of the individuals that by the nature of their addictions can probably bring with them other, you know…. In some cases I imagine there are probably some other problems, criminal problems that develop in the area. I assume that's what the member is referring to. I'm not sure. I'm not as familiar with what the problem is. Maybe the member could help me.

A. Dix: We'll encourage the BIA to get in touch with the minister. I know they've been in touch with the college.
[ Page 2788 ]

One of the issues for me, anyway, in my community is that we distribute methadone at the pharmacy at the Safeway. It was distributed at London Drugs. We distributed it at Shoppers, and then there are a couple of pharmacies where that's all they do. What we've tried to do in Vancouver, and I think it's the right decision, is distribute and try to spread out the population of methadone recipients. It makes sense.

[1755]

Often I think it's better and healthier when you have a full-fledged pharmacy that distributes everything from insulin to painkillers to methadone — and not just the methadone-only pharmacy, which is essentially taking advantage of what can be a very lucrative and specific business but doesn't add very much to the community as a small business.

I mean, if you have a pharmacy in a community that is just doing that, as opposed to one that's distributing the full range of prescription drugs, the latter is better. I'm happy that the local pharmacies I go to…. I'm very happy when you go to a pharmacy that's distributing methadone but also distributing all of these other things, because first of all, they tend to have security — if they're in a Safeway or a London Drugs. There are lots of people around. It's not just a focus in one part of a neighbourhood.

This is a problem that's been going on for a long time, and it's somewhat of a municipal problem as well, I think, and a licensing question. In north Surrey, frequently there are quite a number of methadone clinics. Not just there — in my riding too. Methadone-only pharmacies. They're not just methadone-only, but really, that's what they do. That's their core business, and that's a problem.

My encouragement, I guess — because we want integration in the broader sense — is that we not do this, that we not separate that population by having businesses that do that.

That's my argument. I won't ask the minister to respond, or he can, maybe. But I think that from a business point of view…. I think the good news is that we've had some success in Vancouver at doing this. That's something that we encourage, strangely enough — to not to discourage pharmacies from distributing methadone but actually having the distribution of methadone be as broad and as wide as possible.

I just want to ask the minister about the rate increases, the fairly dramatic rate increases, net rate increases, in residential care services. The minister will know. He announced it on October 8. It's a net increase on seniors and others in residential care — it's not just seniors, of course — of $53.7 million. I believe that it is starting in January 2010, in this fiscal year.

The minister has said that the money will go to improve care. I'm wondering what he means by that. Does he mean that it's going to be used to address overall concerns about per-diem rates? For example, are these residential care fee increases coming to the health authorities, or will they be shared with care providers?

I wonder if the minister…. These are very dramatic increases. If you're making a before-tax income of $22,000, which is not very much, you are going to see a very dramatic — I think a $3,600 — annual increase. So $3,600 — can you imagine? — on $22,000 a year is a huge amount.

I'm curious to know, because we can debate that as well, how the distribution of the proceeds of these dramatic rate increases on seniors receiving a $3,600…. I mean, the Minister of Environment is shocked by this — a $3,600 rate increase on someone making $22,000 a year is just dramatic. It's just a dramatic increase — I think a 13 percent increase.

I think it's astonishing for them — $3,600 a year. What we need to understand, I guess, is that when the minister says that the $53.7 million is going to there, I presume that's an annualized figure. But I'm asking for this year where the approximately $14 million will go — that would be one-quarter of the $53 million this year. Will it in fact be going to dealing with the per-diem entries?

The nice thing about continuing on like this is that it gives the minister more time to consult.

[1800]

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Hon. K. Falcon: First of all, with respect to the methadone clinics, I won't pretend that I have any particular expertise in this area, to be honest, Member, as the Health Minister. But I have to say that I am attracted to the argument that the member opposite makes, so I've asked staff to look into why we couldn't take the same approach in north Surrey that has been undertaken, apparently successfully, in Vancouver.

We will look into that. It seems eminently sensible to me, and so I thank the member for raising that and bringing that to my attention.

In terms of the residential care rates, as the member knows, in the…. Perhaps by way of comparison, in terms of assisted-living facilities, we as the government require those seniors that are living in assisted-care facilities to pay or contribute about 70 percent of the total costs of their accommodations. That's not any health care costs. That's sort of the room and board costs, if you will. In the case of the residential care sector, they will be asked to contribute 80 percent towards their accommodation costs.

The primary difference is that there are not a lot of additional expenses that are involved when you're in the residential care setting — keeping in mind, of course, that 100 percent of your prescription drugs are looked after and 100 percent of the medical care costs are also looked after.

The new structure tries to follow and align itself with the principles underlying what we did under Fair PharmaCare.
[ Page 2789 ]
That means that lower-income seniors will receive a benefit under the new rate structure where 25 percent of them will see a reduction in the premiums that they're paying towards their room and board costs. The balance will pay in accordance with what their income level is. So there are seniors paying in accordance with what their income level is. That will be the contribution that they will make.

Certainly, it means that in the case of those seniors that don't form part of the 25 percent that will see a reduction, they will see an increase. The level of that increase will depend on how much income they earn. Certainly, that will be unwelcome to those who will have to pay more. I understand that they would not…. Most people, if given the option, would say: "I don't want to pay more." That clearly would be the case.

But as the member well knows — because the member would have gone through this while they were in government, at the time when they, also, twice, on two occasions during the 1990s, increased the rates….

The issue, in my view, has to be one of fairness. The fairness principle, to me, is ensuring that no one pays beyond what they're capable of paying. Part of the new methodology that's in place ensures that every client will retain a minimum of $275 a month residual income after taxes, which is an increase and which, I understand from my staff, is the highest after-tax retained amount for seniors than anywhere else in the country. I think that is appropriate.

Is that an easy thing to do? No, it isn't. There are cases and provisions in place that if there's a hardship provision or there's an isolated or individual case where there's a genuine hardship provision…. Because this can occasionally happen, where not everyone meets the exact parameters of the program and for whatever reason may have a unique circumstance. In that case we do have hardship provision allowances to deal with those individual cases.

[1805]

At the end of the day, what we are trying to do is make sure we have a system that can continue to provide top-notch care for seniors and have the seniors contribute towards some portion of that cost of care. This is just, again, the room-and-board portion. This is the housing requirement, if you will, that they will need and, of course, the food and laundry services that they will need as they reside in the residential care.

The final point I will make is that the member is correct in pointing out that we are requiring that the additional dollars raised — on an annualized basis it's just over $53 million — that the health authorities will use those dollars to go towards providing improved service for the room-and-board care that the folks in the residential care setting receive.

That will be the same for the $14 million that will be the portion that…. I believe that's right. The member has referenced that number, and for the sake of the discussion we'll assume that's a correct number, even if it varies either way a little bit. But yes, we would be requiring that the health authorities apply that also towards their room-and-board costs of looking after these seniors.

A. Dix: I feel like I have a long time, but I'm not sure that's true.

Just to say to the minister that I've gone through, now, with a dozen seniors — by letter, by meeting, by correspondence — who have gone through with me in detail their costs and say that this is a dramatic hardship — seniors who are making $17,000, which puts you in the category of receiving an increase, $20,000, $21,000 and $25,000 in those cases.

This is a dramatic rate increase for those seniors and I think highly problematic, especially in the context — I know that we had this discussion in question period yesterday — of the lowest care standards in the country. The minister said it didn't count extended care associated with hospitals. Well, it doesn't in any other jurisdiction either. It's apples to apples, and we're last. In any event, coming to the end of the estimates one hardly wants to end on that note, which somehow seems not as positive as it should be.

I just wanted to, first of all — because the minister will get to do what is an extraordinary thing and move a motion for I think it's $14 billion in spending in a few minutes. I wanted to first of all thank the minister's staff, both his staff in the room and the staff in the back that give them support, express my appreciation, our appreciation — all the members of the opposition — for the work they do and for the work they do in assisting the minister to make this, I think, hopefully, a useful process. So, very much appreciation. If the deputy could pass on to staff the appreciation of all members for that.

I'm going to give the minister a last chance, a last moment, one last question. It has been my practice, hon. Chair, as you know, at the end of estimates to give a long speech and not give the minister any chance to respond. But I don't think that's right, and it doesn't fit the conviviality we have established here.

So I'll just ask the minister one last question, which is the surgical tourism proposal, which was initiated by the Premier. Where is that at? Is that proposal anywhere? What's the process that he's going to undertake? I'll leave the minister the opportunity to answer that question and give any closing remarks he might want to and move the motion.

Hon. K. Falcon: Great. I appreciate the member's kind comments, particularly towards staff. I know that the member makes that compliment, broadly speaking, because I would agree with the member that in spite of the differences we may have on occasion over how health care is delivered or managed or overseen, we
[ Page 2790 ]
certainly, I know, would both heartily agree that the individuals that work within the system, both at the senior staff level in our ministry and right throughout all levels in our ministry and, indeed, right across the entire health care spectrum, do an exceptional job on behalf of British Columbians.

[1810]

I always start or try to make sure that I always start every speech by reminding people that, although they may often hear just these isolated negative stories that occasionally surface with respect to health care, there's just no question in my mind that we have an outstanding health care system that we ought to be very proud of, and that I am very proud of, in British Columbia.

I think it is, indeed, a beacon, and in fact, I am told on many, many occasions by individuals outside of the province that they look to British Columbia for leadership with respect to the health care system. So I want to thank the member for that nice comment.

Before I do some very brief closing remarks, I do want to address the issue of the surgeries from Saskatchewan, which the member raised. The member is correct. This started as a result of a conversation between Premier Brad Wall and our Premier in British Columbia, where Premier Wall was — I imagine…. I don't want to try and interpret the conversation.

The essence of the conversation would have been something along the lines of: "We have significant backlogs in hip and knee surgeries in Saskatchewan. It's daunting." They're trying to figure out how best to deal with them. They had heard about the success we've had in British Columbia, about the investments that we've made in health innovation, into things like the UBC Centre for Surgical Innovation, where $25 million was invested just in the facilities to create a better and newer and improved way of dealing with hip surgeries.

As a result of those health innovation investments, we've seen wait-lists decline, on average, 50 percent for cardiac, hips and knees.

So in light of that, the Premier of Saskatchewan indicated that he would be interested in exploring a discussion whereby Saskatchewan could conceivably look at the prospect of sending patients who require those hip and knee surgeries to British Columbia to have those procedures undertaken in British Columbia.

That was something that we were certainly interested in exploring, on the basis that we felt that given the massive investments we have made here in British Columbia, we could not only undertake those procedures for them but do it in a way where we could charge a premium to reflect the massive tens of millions of dollars' worth of investments that we have made in dramatically improving our wait-list on hips and knees.

It would be up to the government of Saskatchewan to determine whether that would still provide the kind of value necessary for them to make the decision to, indeed, move forward in sending the patients to British Columbia.

The reason why we wanted to make sure that there was a premium reflected in us doing it was because, obviously, we're not interested in doing it just for the sake of doing it. We've got British Columbians who also require those services and want to have those services. So we would only do it on the basis that a premium is paid such that we can use those dollars to get British Columbians through the system faster.

That was the nature of the discussion. I'm not sure where Saskatchewan is on that. I understand their position. No doubt, they're receiving their share of political feedback on that, and I imagine that they'll have to decide whether that's the appropriate way.

The last time I had the discussion with their Minister of Health, he advised that they were still examining the B.C. option, private clinics and them undertaking the equivalent kind of massive investments, presumably, that we've made here in British Columbia. They will have to decide which is the appropriate way to move forward for the government of Saskatchewan and for the benefit of their patients.

As I say, in British Columbia we are certainly ready, willing and able to accommodate them should they decide that that makes sense for them as a government. Certainly, we think that we can do that in British Columbia. We've got the best surgeons, the best facilities, and if that would generate additional revenues that would allow us to get British Columbian patients through the system quicker, that's something we would certainly examine.

Just a final comment. Again, I just want to echo…. I recognize the time, so I don't want to take up more time than necessary. I want to thank the critic for doing a very good job in critiquing the Ministry of Health and helping and working with us to coordinate the questions from his members. That was very helpful. It allowed us to minimize the moving of binders to a dull roar so that it wasn't dominating the entire debate, and I appreciate that support.

I just want to, again — particularly as we're working our way through the H1N1 pandemic — really say a special thank-you to those folks in the system. My mother was a nurse in the system in Canada for almost 30 years. I can tell you that I have the highest level of appreciation for the medical services we offer in this country. My father was, unfortunately, ridden with multiple illnesses that required him to be unable to speak, and he had to be tube-fed. He received some of the most incredible care that our system is capable of offering.

[1815]

I can tell you this: were it not for our system, our family could not possibly have afforded the kind of care he received. I also lost a brother in an unfortunate accident.
[ Page 2791 ]
He received a level of care at the VGH burn unit and at the trauma unit in Kamloops that was nothing short of exceptional. It has forever reminded me and wedded me to the fact that we have an outstanding health system in the province of British Columbia, and I view my duty to help improve and make the system better.

But I am also challenged by the reality that even with this exceptional system, we have escalating cost pressures that are real and that we are going to have to deal with. The easiest thing for politicians to do is to try and pretend they're not real, don't make any decisions and just muddle along. I do think that we have an obligation to our children and our grandchildren to ensure that they will enjoy the fruits of the exceptional system that I have seen firsthand and that I'm sure that many members of this Legislature have also witnessed firsthand.

I want to say thank you to all the medical professionals and all the folks in whatever scope of service they provide to the health care system for the great work that they do every day and continue to work and do every day going forward.

Vote 34: ministry operations, $14,008,318,000 — approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the Ministry of Health Services and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:17 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