2011 Legislative Session: Third 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, May 24, 2011

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 22, Number 9

[ Page 7321 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2011

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Bell: [Mandarin was spoken.]

Thank you for your tolerance, Mr. Speaker. I think of that as my revenge to the member for Burnaby North.

What I just tried to say was: ladies and gentlemen, I introduce today Vice-Governor Song and 14 people from Hebei province in China. We continue to build a strong relationship and increase levels of trade. My Chinese is not very good, so I will say this again in English: would the House please make them feel very, very welcome.

[1335]

Hon. I. Chong: I'm delighted to introduce in the precinct 45 students from a school not in my riding but that I have a close connection with. They're from Reynolds Secondary School in Victoria — the member for Saanich South's riding. They're French immersion sciences humaines — their French immersion class 11. They are here with their teacher Selena Jensen.

I know that later today they will be meeting with the Minister of Education but are here today to see what we do and also to learn about how the Legislature works in general. I would ask the House to give them a very warm welcome as they visit us here today.

M. Elmore: I'm very pleased to welcome to Victoria and to their tour in the Legislature a number of students from John Oliver School in Vancouver-Kensington as well as their teachers or staff members: Klaus Klein and Liane Langton, who are staff with the Take a Hike program; as well as students Puneet Aujla, Isaiah Cartier, Otis Graydon, Rueben Lobe, Dylan McTavish, John Phun, Jordan Reid, Jean-Luc St. Jacques and Ben Carter.

The Take a Hike program was founded ten years ago. Students combine adventure-based activities with academic and leadership training. These students have volunteered at community centres; senior centres; the food bank; elementary schools, where they help run sports programs; and the children's festival, as well as a number of outdoor activities: camping, hiking, kayaking and rock climbing.

They recently completed the West Coast Trail, and I'm very pleased that they've invited me on their next hiking adventure, probably on the North Shore. I'm looking forward to that. I ask everyone to please give them a warm welcome.

P. Pimm: It's with great pleasure that I rise today to introduce two guests. First, I would like to introduce the hon. Jay Hill, who served as my MP for 17 years and was House Leader in Ottawa. He was a great asset to our province and to Canada. Would the House please make him welcome.

Secondly, I would like to introduce Hanif Ladha with CCS Midstream Services. This company is involved with soil remediation in our area and does a great job of looking after our environment. Please help me welcome him to our House and his first question period, so everybody be nice today.

L. Krog: Joining us in the gallery today is an old friend of mine from Richmond, a real political junkie and one of those bright techie guys who works in a world that I don't understand — Dale Jackman.

Hon. H. Bloy: I'm proud to join some of the other members in the House. My wife and I became grandparents again late last week, for the second time. I can tell you that my son Jeremy and his wife, Jen, and their first child, our first grandchild, James, are all fine, and they welcome Jackson Robert to the world.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present an interim report of the Office of the Merit Commissioner.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Coastal Ferry
Amendment Act, 2011

Hon. B. Lekstrom presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2011.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I would move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

[1340]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 14, the Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2011. Amendments to the Coastal Ferry Act are needed to provide the B.C. ferries commissioner, as he requested, with the mandate to undertake a review of the act to recommend changes to better balance the interests of ferry users with the financial sustainability of the ferry operator. It's also to provide the B.C. ferries commissioner with the time necessary to conduct the review before issuing the final price-cap
[ Page 7322 ]
decision for the next four-year performance term commencing April 1, 2012.

It will establish an interim price cap of 4.15 percent for all routes for 2012-2013. As well, it will provide the B.C. ferries commissioner with the financial resources necessary to undertake the review, and it will constrain the ferry operator from discontinuing services or asking for extraordinary fare increases until the commissioner releases a final price-cap decision. I will provide more information as these amendments go to second reading.

Mr. Speaker, I would 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 14, Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2011, 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)

CHILD AND YOUTH IN CARE WEEK

C. Trevena: This week marks B.C.'s first Child and Youth in Care Week. This is a significant statement which should not be treated lightly. There are more than 8,300 children and youth in B.C. who are in the care of the government. A disproportionate number of them are aboriginal.

We have a huge responsibility to ensure that those children and youth are given the best start they can have. More often than not, children and youth who are in care have faced traumatic situations in their lives, situations that many of us as adults simply cannot envisage. Sadly, looking at statistics, those children who have been in government care face more health risks, have a greater likelihood of substance abuse, are much less likely to graduate from high school and are more likely to attempt suicide.

We have a duty to both protect and to nurture those children and young people. That means providing stability. It means guaranteeing education. It means treating children and youth with dignity and respect, not just ensuring that their basic needs are met. It also means ensuring that their rights are respected and that they know what they are. We should adhere to the UN rights of the child, and young people should be made aware of them.

We are lucky in this province to have, after many battles, an excellent Representative for Children and Youth — an independent, articulate person who acts as a watchdog for children and young people in care, a voice for those least heard.

Everyone wants to have as normal a life as possible — family care rather than institutional, keeping families together rather than breaking up the natural relationships. But it's incumbent on us during this week and all weeks to make sure this is never done simply as a way to reduce costs.

In the long run, everyone knows if there's no investment in young people, the later costs — whether through the criminal justice system, the health care system, social services — are immense. Children and youth in care are often among our most vulnerable citizens, but they deserve the same start in life that every child and young person wants and deserves.

Let's hope that this first Child and Youth in Care Week makes a difference for the many thousands who need more than a proclamation.

POTLATCH CELEBRATION ON
HAIDA GWAII

C. Hansen: This past weekend I had the pleasure of attending an event that for more than half of the past 120 years would have been illegal in British Columbia. It was a potlatch that was held on Haida Gwaii. It was very special occasion for me, as in 2006 at a ceremony in Skidegate, I was given the Haida name of Nang K'ang.gudang.as, and in October of 2008 I was adopted into the clan of the Gidins of Skidegate, one of the eagle clans.

At that potlatch the Gidins of Skidegate were celebrating as Sid Crosby became their new chief, Chief Wigaanad. This past weekend Chief Wigaanad became the first chief in many decades to raise a new totem pole. Saturday morning the ropes and pulleys were all in place as hundreds of people showed up to pull on the ropes to raise the pole. The pole has two distinct rings at the top to indicate that Chief Wigaanad was hosting his second potlatch.

The potlatch that afternoon and evening lasted nine hours. The clan prepared food to feed a thousand guests. There was an abundance of salmon, halibut, octopus, crab, prawns and many other Haida delicacies, including herring roe on kelp, or k'aaw, as the Haida call it. There was singing and dancing that showcased the richness of the Haida culture. The masks and button blankets were beyond what anyone could find in any museum today. At the end of the evening every guest left with gifts of art prints, carvings and blankets.

And to think that from 1889 to 1951, the potlatch was illegal in Canada. This Legislature, along with the Parliament of Canada, took many unfortunate actions to stamp out the languages and the rich cultures of our First Nations communities.

This past weekend I witnessed a Haida culture that is moving confidently into the future, as young Haida are embracing the traditions and learning the language. I left tremendously proud of my chief, Chief Wigaanad, who demonstrated that he is one of the strong Haida leaders who will lead the Haida Nation into the future.

[1345]
[ Page 7323 ]

SERVICE FAIR FOR LOW-INCOME
FAMILIES IN VICTORIA

C. James: I'm pleased to talk about an important initiative in my community called Project Connect. Project Connect has been held for the last three years and is a popular service fair for people living homeless and in extreme poverty. It's organized by the Greater Victoria Coalition to End Homelessness and offers a long list of much-needed services for hundreds of individuals each time it's held.

In 2010 the coalition noted there was a need for a similar event outside the downtown core for families living in poverty. So in April of this year Coalition Connect for Families was held at the Victoria Native Friendship Centre in partnership with the Burnside Gorge Community Association.

Over 250 families representing over 700 individuals attended this very successful event. Over 30 service providers volunteered their time — everything from haircuts to acupuncture treatments and foot care; CareCards and birth certificate replacements, a service my office is pleased to assist with; resumes; family portraits; money management; and, of course, entertainment and food for the families.

The generosity of several community sponsors led to the success of Coalition Connect, a true community partnership. Donations meant the families received a reusable grocery bag containing much-needed items, including shampoo, toothpaste, toothbrushes, children's books, school supplies and baby wipes.

Both Burnside Gorge and the Victoria Native Friendship Centre offered staff to help organize the event, and event coordinators Mary Gidney and Nicole Jackson worked above and beyond to ensure the day went well. Special recognition must also be paid to key volunteers Deb Nelson and Joy Spencer Barry, along with 75 other volunteers.

I ask the House to join me in thanking all those involved in this extraordinary initiative and to join with me to work towards the day when Project Connect and Coalition to End Homelessness are a thing of the past because adequate services and supports are in place for everyone in our community.

VIC GREEN AND ACTNOW B.C. PROGRAM

D. Barnett: Today it gives me great pleasure to speak about a constituent of mine, Mr. Vic Green. A bit of background. In June 2006 the provincial government, under the Ministry of Health, initiated a program called ActNow, which went on to be recognized by the World Health Organization as a best-practices model for health promotion.

An opportunity was given to local governments to receive pedometers free, to either give them or sell them to promote active lifestyles. At that time I was mayor of a small community, and I am proud to say that we obtained 2,000 pedometers and sold them for $5 each.

Mr. Vic Green, who is a very active senior, a member of B.C. Power Hydro Pioneers purchased pedometers for himself and his wife, Irene. He has kept track of his total daily kilometres for a year. His total for twelve months was 1,559.63 kilometres or an average of 4.3 kilometres per day.

Today Vic celebrates his 79th birthday. He was also a volunteer firefighter for 50 years, and both he and his wife are active square dancers and involved in many other community activities. Vic says at that the ActNow program has helped him, his wife and others become active on a daily basis. Today he says he is virtually pain-free and mobile.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OF
FRASER RIVER ESTUARY

V. Huntington: Some 30 years ago continuous habitat losses in the Fraser River Estuary resulted in the creation of the Fraser River estuary management plan or FREMP. That plan has, until recently, permitted development to take place more or less in parallel with the need to protect the environmental values of the estuary.

But FREMP doesn't work the way it used to, and developments in the Lower Fraser River now threaten our beloved river. We are failing to provide the protection this world-class river so desperately needs and, in particular, failing to protect that section of the river from Hope to Steveston.

Our Fraser River still supports the world's largest single-river salmon runs. It is one of two of Canada's largest estuaries of global significance. It is Canada's largest waterfowl overwintering area, and it is a vital recreational and economic driving force in B.C.'s economy.

[1350]

Despite the brilliance of the Fraser ecosystem, we are seeing one of the largest threats to the estuary in the last 30 years — the proposal to ship toxic jet fuel in barges and tankers from international sources into the estuary. This development is unprecedented in its risk to the fish, wildlife and public safety of the estuary, yet has been expedited with inadequate public input. The applicant even obtained construction permits before the environmental assessment is complete.

We are also witnessing the mining of gravel bars in the Chilliwack section of the river. In spite of the studies to the contrary, we are told this reduces flood risk. Those same studies caution that many of the gravel bars are key habitats for salmon, sturgeon and eulachon.

We desperately need a Lower Fraser River environmental management plan stretching from Steveston to Hope. We have taken our river for granted for too long, and without conservation leadership, our children will wonder what happened to this world-class legacy.
[ Page 7324 ]

NECHAKO LAKES SCHOOL DISTRICT

J. Rustad: You can find innovation in school districts around the province, but I would like to take a moment to boast about school district 91 in Nechako Lakes. They have been front-runners in many activities, often setting a template for other districts to follow.

Last week I had the pleasure of joining 35 students from across the district in one such endeavour. Project Heavy Duty celebrated their 25th year in operation, exposing students to a world of heavy equipment operation and the many careers available. Students experience skidders, loaders, feller bunchers, gravel trucks, excavators, backhoes, graders, earth-moving machinery and Bobcats. Among other things, they travelled to Endako Mines to learn about mining and spent some time at L&M Lumber to see what's involved in the sawmilling business.

Project Heavy Duty would not be possible without the terrific support from local businesses and individuals, such as: YRB Vanderhoof; Henry Klassen Sawmills; Bid Construction; the B.C. Ambulance Service; Vanderhoof Co-op; Endako Mines; K & D Contracting; Harry O Contracting; Vanderhoof fire department; Ambroy Construction; Gordie Peters Logging; Gulbranson Logging; Fraser Lake Sawmills; Pitka Logging; and of course, the maintenance department at school district 91. I would like to thank all the volunteers who've made Project Heavy Duty possible, especially Darren Carpenter.

There is a significant need for students to choose careers that are fulfilling but also that meet our economic needs. School district 91 is working with industry and communities to meet those challenges. Their leadership in PHD, E-bus and project agriculture, which is celebrating its 20th year this year, is phenomenal. Now school district 91 is taking on a new role, engaging in China to build an international school and to attract foreign students to attend schools here in B.C.

Please join me in congratulating school district 91 in all of their endeavours and in thanking the staff, volunteers and businesses that are making such a difference for our students.

Oral Questions

BUSINESS PLAN FOR
B.C. CARECARD INITIATIVE

A. Dix: As much as I'd like to ask questions about the formerly revenue-neutral HST, today it appears I'm going to be asking questions of the Minister of Health. Just a really simple one to start with for the minister. Can he table with the House his business plan for the introduction of the new CareCard plan?

Hon. M. de Jong: To the hon. opposition leader, I presume his interest in the matter is tied in part to the fact that he, as I do, finds it unsatisfactory that there are over nine million CareCards floating around British Columbia for a population in excess of four million people. The government has decided to take steps to try and address that. During the course of this discussion, the estimates that will follow and the bill that is before the House, which gives rise to that transition, will give us ample opportunity to discuss the matter in detail.

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

A. Dix: I guess the better question would be: is there a business plan? Because the minister said earlier today, based on anecdotal evidence, he thought the amount of fraud in question was between $50 million and $100 million. He got the margin of error down to 100 percent. He got it down to 100 percent. The ministry has identified last year $936,000 worth of CareCard fraud.

[1355]

The ministry suggested…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: …to the public yesterday that they thought they could save $10 million a year on $150 million worth of expenditure.

So I guess the question to the minister is very simple. Is there a business plan, given the completely contradictory information his ministry has put out about this plan over the last three days?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I can begin by assuring the member that any document I table will have an accurate date on it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: The Canadian Health Care Anti-fraud Association is an agency that is dedicated to examining matters such as this. It estimates that British Columbians lose upwards of $300 million plus to health care fraud every year. Now, maybe they're wrong. Maybe it's $200 million. Maybe it's $100 million.

Fraud, by its very nature, is a difficult matter to quantify, but we believe that by taking steps to update and upgrade the CareCard in a manner in which many other provinces already have and add an enhanced security feature that is actually good for patients' safety, that that is the right thing to do.
[ Page 7325 ]

We've indicated what the cost of that is. We think it is a good investment on behalf of the taxpayers to support publicly funded health care.

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

A. Dix: The minister is saying that the ministry has found $936,000 worth of fraud and that he believes, according to the report, that there's close to $300 million worth of fraud. So that is, shall we say, a giant gap.

What we would like to know is — since this apparently has been going on year after year after year — where is the business plan, and where is the evidence? Isn't it reasonable that the Minister of Health today table in this House and table with the people of British Columbia, in advance of spending $150 million, what the business plan is for this initiative?

Hon. M. de Jong: Part of the reason we are confronted by the situation that presently exists relates to a decision that was made, I will assume in good faith, in the mid-1990s.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: I would have thought that some of the members, at least, would like to reminisce about those halcyon days.

The decision was made at that time to eliminate the expiry date on CareCards. Now, as I say, I presume and accept that the decision was made in good faith. In fact, what we are now confronted with is a proliferation of CareCards in British Columbia, which we believe enhances the possibility of fraudulent access to our publicly funded health care system.

Just as the Health critic, who I expect we're going to hear from in just a moment, said a few days ago: "I think a system that's much more focused on ensuring that people have a card, and that it's the right card…. We do it with drivers' licences. We do it with credit cards." That is the underlying principle behind precisely what the government is doing, and I would hope the members would accept that.

[1400]

M. Farnworth: Forgive us on this side for being a little skeptical, but when it comes to numbers, this government's record is not quite up to par, not quite up to scratch. Thursday the minister announced the program. He said $10 million. Two hours later it was changed to: "Well, there's an additional $28 million for the next five years." That's $150 million.

Yet by the ministry's own figures, $936,000 in fraud last year. The minister has stood up here in the House today and said that it could be upwards of $300 million. Yet the number that they used over the weekend was $240 million. The numbers around this initiative keep changing faster than the Premier has got positions on the HST.

The public has a right to know, on an initiative like this — everyone supports cracking down on fraud — that the government has done its homework; that they've put together a business case; that they've looked over the last five years, for example, at what type of fraud is taking place and how much fraud is taking place so that when they make an investment of $150 million, we know exactly what it's for and where it's going.

The question is really simple. Did the government do a business plan? Did the government do any reports on the amount of fraud taking place? And if so, will the minister table them here in the House?

Hon. M. de Jong: Presumably the member agrees with the proposition that having twice as many CareCards floating around the province as there are citizens is an unsatisfactory situation. Presumably he also agrees with the proposition that fraud, by its very nature, is difficult to definitively quantify. In fact, the analysis, as best we can, has been conducted.

The analysis around costs. There is a cost. It is a significant cost to move from an antiquated CareCard to one that contains a picture, to one that contains a smart chip that will allow for better procedures in emergency rooms, that will provide for more ready access to patients' health care records. All of that does come at a cost.

It is in the neighbourhood of $20 to $30 per card, and that cost will be borne over the next five years as drivers' licences come up for renewal and people have the option of combining two cards into one.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: The minister may have trouble quantifying fraud, but I can tell him this. The public have no trouble quantifying the fraud around the HST that was perpetrated on them before the last election. What it comes down to is that the minister made an announcement on Thursday about $10 million and CareCards, and since that announcement we have seen number after number, figure after figure. It has changed more than bids and figures around the B.C. Place roof.

So the question the public has is: on what basis did you make the decision? Was it on the basis of studies done by the ministry on the nature of fraud, on the types of fraud? Was it just pulled out of a hat? The public deserves the right to know. Again, was there a business plan done? If not, just say so. If there was, table it in the House. Finally, finally, table any studies that you've got on fraud. Were they done?
[ Page 7326 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the last time the member and I were discussing fraud, it was originating out of Nanaimo. But that was another time, another place.

[1405]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: I can assure the member, this House and British Columbians that I, the government and the ministry, having examined all of the available evidence, are firmly of the belief that by taking this step and by making this investment on behalf of British Columbians, the savings in eliminated fraudulent activity will more than offset the investment that we are making on behalf of British Columbians — period. That's why we've made the decision to proceed.

FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS
AT CAPILANO UNIVERSITY

M. Mungall: This evening Capilano University is contemplating a major cut to programs, and 1,100 seats are at risk. Four hundred of them are in adult basic education, a program that provides learners with the basic skills to go on to university, trades and job training. Capilano University president Kris Bulcroft said that the program cuts are necessary because provincial funding hasn't kept pace with rising costs of providing an education to adults.

Can the minister commit today to increasing the current levels of funding in order to ensure that each one of these students has access to fundamental education programs like adult basic education?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: As the former board chair of Capilano, I'm actually delighted to have the opportunity to speak about Cap and what this government has done to post-secondary education in the last decade.

Since 2001 this government has invested almost $21.8 billion in post-secondary education. We've also invested almost $2 billion in student financial aid. Despite the global economic uncertainty, this government has protected core funding for post-secondary education.

Capilano has been and continues to be a provincial leader in innovative student-centred programming. This government and Capilano University will continue to partner in providing high-quality post-secondary education at Capilano University.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Mungall: It seems that the minister is still stuck on page 1 of the briefing note. Last week in estimates the minister said she knew of no adult basic education program being cut. Two days later she's defending those exact cuts in the news. She even went on to say about the funding: "We actually haven't seen the cuts."

Well, the minister might as well be running with scissors, because shortfalls and failure to keep up are certainly effective ways that the B.C. Liberals are making cuts and costing schools, students and families more.

How can the minister be so off the mark when it comes to the situation at Capilano University? She even noted that she was on the board there. Will she commit today to protect the 400 adult basic education seats at Capilano University?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I'm pleased to say that B.C.'s post-secondary institutions continue to benefit from the largest investment in post-secondary education in this decade. Since 2001 this government has overseen the creation of over 33,000 seats in post-secondary education in B.C.

[1410]

To the member opposite: I'd be happy any day to compare this government's record on post-secondary education against yours.

R. Fleming: Everybody knows that the number one barrier to getting into the job market in British Columbia is getting a high school diploma, and without one, 85 percent of any job openings are already closed. So how can this minister…? How can she oversee the elimination of 400 adult education seats in her own back yard in North Vancouver and deny that there are cuts going on in the ministry?

The question for the minister is: what does this cut do for raising adult literacy? What does it do for tackling chronic poverty in British Columbia? How is it good for families wanting an opportunity for a better life in her riding and in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The member opposite is simply wrong. As I've said, this government has continued to protect core funding for post-secondary education in B.C.

Capilano University, like other post-secondary institutions, makes its own decisions. They're autonomous. They make their own decisions regarding staffing, programming and administration. I'm confident that the budget decisions that Capilano University administration has made will ensure that Capilano University students will get a high-quality post-secondary education in B.C.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.
[ Page 7327 ]

R. Fleming: The minister is quite wrong. The province of British Columbia is the principal funder of Capilano University and other institutions in British Columbia.

Here's what the Capilano board of governors is discussing tonight. They are discussing a seat reduction of 1,100 seats at the institution — for students with disabilities, for students seeking to get a high school diploma so they can go on to earn a trade or to pursue advanced education at another stage at that institution or another one. That's what the president of Capilano University says.

So who's right? Who's wrong? Is it the minister, or the president of Capilano University, who says that it's funding cuts that are causing an 1,100-seat reduction in the institution in her riding? Will she stand up today in the House and stand up for adult literacy and students in British Columbia and in North Vancouver?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The member opposite is wrong. Capilano University will still be offering the ABE, the adult basic education, programs at all their campuses, and they will be fulfilling a hundred percent of their commitment to the government to provide adult basic education on their campuses.

VANCOUVER FLOATPLANE
TERMINAL CONTRACT

S. Chandra Herbert: My question is a simple one. It's reported that the B.C. Liberals are giving nearly $4 million of British Columbians' money to the private for-profit Vancouver Harbour Flight Centre to subsidize an airport which will start gouging the public with the highest fees in all of B.C. when it opens tomorrow. This shakedown will hurt tourism businesses on the Gulf Islands, Nanaimo, Victoria, Comox, Sunshine Coast, to name just a few.

Will the minister tell this House how many millions of dollars the B.C. Liberals are giving away?

Hon. P. Bell: This issue was canvassed thoroughly in estimates and again in question period two weeks ago. I assure the member opposite that I'm not going to reveal any of the details on this until the negotiation is complete. In fact, there are meetings going on today between all of the parties, and we're still optimistic that we'll find a positive outcome.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Chandra Herbert: So I get this. The B.C. Liberals are negotiating how many millions of our dollars they're giving away for a botched P3 project which is gouging the public — the worst rates in all of B.C. This is astounding.

[1415]

Now, we understand that B.C. Liberals often say there's no money for education, no money for health care, but a private floatplane operator service company calls up and says, "We need subsidies here for your botched project," and they get them. This is outrageous.

When will the B.C. Liberals call a halt to this ridiculous giveaway that they're trying to do to fix their botched project? Will the minister do this today?

Hon. P. Bell: The floatplane industry is an important industry in British Columbia for the tourism sector. There is in the order of 350,000 passengers per year that are carried between Vancouver and Victoria and other centres around the province. Certainly, in speaking to the tourism industry, I know how important it is. We are looking to find a collaborative solution to this, and I'm not going to discuss the terms of that until we complete that in this House.

J. Horgan: You'll forgive me if when I hear that the B.C. Liberals are working for a positive outcome that I'm not convinced the taxpayers are the end result of that.

I want to ask the minister a simple question, following on my colleague from Vancouver–West End. If Harbour Air, which carries 85 percent of the traffic in and out of the harbour, is not participating in this negotiation, then how can we possibly get an outcome that's positive for everyone?

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite is obviously not reading his media clips. If he was, he'd know that Harbour Air is part of the negotiation.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: I was just there the other day signing the petition to see if I could do something to get some sense into this minister's head. When he talks about a positive outcome, perhaps they could have used some of that massive cost overrun at the convention centre to subsidize this profitable organization that's at the front of the line.

I want to know if the minister can quantify just how much PavCo is authorized to give away of taxpayers' money to get a deal with a positive outcome for everyone?

Hon. P. Bell: This issue, as I said previously, has been canvassed extensively in the estimates process, in question period two weeks ago, and again today. I've been very clear with my answer. Until we complete the negotiation between the various parties, I'm not going to disclose the level of those negotiations. That would not be appropriate to do.

We do care about the tourism industry. We know it's a key contributor to the overall provincial economy, and
[ Page 7328 ]
I would think that the member opposite would respect that and make sure that we get a positive outcome for everyone in British Columbia.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON HOMELESSNESS
AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING

S. Simpson: We saw the homelessness count that came out in Metro Vancouver today, and we saw some progress around sheltered homelessness in the province. What we know is that that has largely been due to the Vancouver heat shelter strategy, and it has been a good strategy.

However, the other thing that's been dismaying in this report is that it shows that there really has been no progress on the larger question of homelessness since 2008. The numbers are essentially the same. Hon. Speaker, the problem here, though, and it's laid out in the report to some degree, is what may be right over the horizon.

My question is to the Housing Minister. Mr. Wayne Wright, who is the chair of the Metro Vancouver housing committee and the mayor of New Westminster, is quoted as saying in the report: "The lack of affordable rental housing in the region is putting low-to-moderate-income young people, families and seniors at risk of homelessness. Addressing this needs to be a priority for all levels of government as well."

This government has done little when it comes to families, seniors and youth. Can the minister tell us when he's going to introduce programs for families and seniors and youth?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, this is the same member opposite who three years ago, along with his former colleague from Vancouver-Kensington, I think was the riding…. They were claiming there were 15,000 homeless people in the city of Vancouver.

[1420]

Today we have done a homeless count, and the housing…. It shows us that homelessness is down in British Columbia, a trend that has not been achieved anywhere else in North America, hon. Member.

You know, I thought for once the member opposite would actually stand up and say that the fact that street homelessness in the city of Vancouver has dropped by 82 percent is a good thing, and actually compliment the government. I thought he might want to reflect on the 6,000 people who were previously homeless in 2008 but who have been connected to housing and support in the last three years in British Columbia and changed their lives. I thought he might want to reflect on that.

And he doesn't have to ask me, hon. Member.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: Oh. That's okay. I've got more.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

GRANT'S LAW AND
PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

R. Chouhan: I want to ask a question to the Minister of Labour. I can't find her or see her there. I hope she'll be back soon.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just take your seat for a second. By the rules of the House you do not indicate whether a minister or a member is in or out of the House, please.

Continue, Member.

R. Chouhan: Sorry about that, Mr. Speaker.

Since its proclamation in 2005 Grant's law has provided necessary protection for gas station workers requiring two workers on site on night shifts. Despite strong opposition from workers and the labour community, the Minister of Labour is choosing to review the current regulation and considering exemptions that would water down the existing regulations.

My question is to the Minister of Labour. Will the minister commit today to protecting vulnerable workers by scrapping the review and ensuring enforcement of the law in order to save lives?

Hon. R. Coleman: Hon. Speaker, I will take the question on notice for the minister, but I would be happy to expound on the great achievements of Housing in the province of British Columbia, if you'd asked me a question.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Chouhan: My question is to the Solicitor General now. Despite the government's so-called families-first agenda, the B.C. Liberals refuse to listen to public opinion. The workers' safety should be paramount for any government. We need to take real, concrete steps to ensure that these workers are protected and that the current regulations are enforced.

To the Solicitor General: will there be any action taken by the government to protect the workers' lives? We have seen in the past that Grant's law has worked to protect those workers. Will there be any action taken in the near future to scrap the review of these regulations?
[ Page 7329 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: I've already taken it on notice for the minister responsible, and I'll do it again.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: This afternoon, we'll be discussing or actually telling people the rest of the stats on housing in the province…. No, I'm kidding, Mr. Speaker, but we would be happy to.

[1425]

In this House this afternoon we'll begin the estimates of the Ministry of Health, and in Committee A we'll be doing the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, continued.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

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

The committee met at 2:30 p.m.

On Vote 32: ministry operations, $15,566,169,000.

M. Farnworth: I'd like to start off by…. We can't seem to get away from each other in this place. For the last few years it was as Solicitor General, and now it's for the Ministry of Health. I know that the minister is basically still new in the portfolio, as am I in the critic area that I'm in. I can commit to him that I will not be raising questions as to how we both ended up in these respective positions.

Suffice it to say that for the next few days we will be discussing Ministry of Health estimates. My office has, I think, communicated with him about some of how it should unfold. Tomorrow we'll be dealing with seniors issues, by and large, most of the day, and then Thursday morning, public health issues.

Today, just to give an outline of some of the topics that I would like to try and get through — and I know that we're not going to be able to get to everything because we are somewhat constrained for time — I want to talk a bit about the minister's office; the business plan; the health accord; long-term funding; patient-focused funding; CareCard; skills and shortages — doctors, nurses, the health professions. Also, probably we'll finish on facilities — Surrey Memorial, Royal Columbian, the major hospitals.

If we can cover that today, I think that will be great. This afternoon I think there'll also be an opportunity, on a lot of those sort of regional facility questions, for my colleagues to get into asking some questions.

So if that's fine with the minister, if other staff are required…? We can begin.

Hon. M. de Jong: To the hon. member, the critic: I, too, anticipated the possibility of facing off with him in this chamber, perhaps under different circumstances. But here we are in these circumstances.

I would like, however, to simply do this: introduce the officials that are here at the moment with us. Graham Whitmarsh is the deputy minister; Michael MacDougall, chief operating officer; Manjit Sidhu, ADM, financial and corporate services division; and John Bethel is the chief administrative officer.

The program that the hon. member has laid out for discussions is one that makes sense for me. If we come to an area where we feel it is helpful for the discussion to draw on the expertise of another official, I am reliably advised that there is a veritable armada waiting in another room, and we can draw on that expertise as it is required. I'm looking forward to the discussion today and tomorrow.

M. Farnworth: I'd like to begin my opening question with, I mean, the obvious, which is that health care is the largest component of government spending in the province of British Columbia. Indeed, it is in any province. The rate of growth in the health care budget has been significant every year for the last 30 years, and it's projected to continue that way.

I was interested that during the leadership campaign there were some questions, comments, from the current Premier, about tying the health care budget to the rate of economic growth. So my question to the minister is: is that a practical and doable suggestion by the Premier — to tie health care spending to the rate of economic growth?

[1435]

Hon. M. de Jong: The member fairly, I think, points out the challenge that we face. I say "we" as a society. He has first-person experience with this as a former Health Minister: the, some would say, exponential growth in health care spending which tracks the demographic evolution of our society.

However, the need to try and constrain the rate of that growth is very real. To acknowledge that addressing the health care needs of British Columbians isn't merely a function of moving on the wishes that we all have as caring members of this Legislature and society generally…. There must be a matching ability to pay.

The notion that our ability to spend is tied to government revenue — which, in and of itself, is tied to growth in the economy — is perhaps an imperfect concept but not one without merit. So our ability to pay is tied ultimately to the revenues that government collects, and that is tied to growth in the economy.
[ Page 7330 ]

The member will, I'm sure, agree that the pressure that is being placed on government operations generally because of the growth in health care spending is very real and something that has presented challenges, obviously, to this government over the last decade and to governments before this one over the last 30 or 40 years.

M. Farnworth: The minister's point, I think, is well taken. Government is responsible for paying. There is an ability-to-pay aspect to the delivery of health care in the province, but it is also the service that most British Columbians rely on most and expect to be there when they need it.

When the Premier of the province says, "Let's tie health care spending to the rate of growth," that has some significant implications on the delivery of health care in B.C. I think, if you look at the latest figures, that would have resulted in about a $518 million cut to the delivery of programs in British Columbia if the government were to adopt a position of tying health care to the rate of growth in the province.

Can the minister tell us: has the Premier been briefed on the impact of that type of approach to health care spending in the province?

The Chair: Hon. Members, if I might take this opportunity to welcome 35 students visiting us today. Femida Jagani is the teacher. It's the Az-Zahraa Islamic Academy in the riding of Richmond East. I'd ask the House to please make them very welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong: There are a couple of ways, I think, to try to fairly address the point that the hon. member has made. First of all, I'm reminded that there is a difference if you benchmark against real GDP versus nominal GDP. It will take keener economic minds than mine to lay out accurately and in detail all of the differences, but I am advised that when you talk about nominal GDP, it actually tracks fairly closely.

I think a couple of things have happened, though. The experience of September 2008-2009 and what it did fiscally and economically — not just to the province; the country, North America and the world — was clearly abnormal.

[1440]

So part of the role one could argue for government when confronted by that sort of calamitous change in economies, in economic performance, is to smooth out some of those radical changes, and that is a valid argument. But it is equally valid — and my point — for governments to strive, through three-year economic planning and forecasts, to try and draw some parameters around the growth that is taking place.

One of the things that I have learned over the last number of years — generally, as someone sitting at a cabinet table in a department of government that has been adversely impacted by the growth in health care spending — is if you go on the street and stop ten people, probably eight or nine of them would very fairly, very honestly, tell you that in their view, health care spending has been cut in B.C. — and say that at a time where over the last ten years it has almost doubled from $9 billion to closing in on $18 billion.

There's a reason for that. People don't make that up to be purposely dishonest. It's a perception they have, but it's also a reflection on the fact that those costs continue to grow at an alarming rate.

It is, in my view, legitimate for government — governments across the country, for that matter — to speak about the need to constrain in some reasonable manner the rate of that growth and to draw some parameters around it, or the impact that growth in spending and health care is having on other public services is going to continue and to amplify.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the minister's answer, and I understand exactly what he's saying. Health care spending is growing exponentially, faster than the rate of growth that's taking place, but overall, as a percentage of our GDP, it's remained fairly constant.

I think one of the questions, though, if you ask the public is: are we getting the best bang for the dollar? Are we being innovative in terms of how we spend our health care dollars? I think some of those questions we'll be dealing with later.

The issue that I think people want to have some confidence in is that the head of government truly understands the role and nature of health care spending in the province today, how people value it. The fact that there are…. You know, a simplistic idea of saying, "Let's just tie it to the rate of growth," has some very important consequences.

I think one of the things that we will certainly look for and I think the public is certainly looking for is that the Minister of Health, in his role as Minister of Health, is making the Premier acutely aware of the impact of statements such as that and of decisions that may go down that path will have on the delivery of health care services in the province.

To that end, I'd like to ask the minister…. Again, during the campaign the Premier indicated that she wanted to create a subcommittee on health care spending to look at spending. Has that taken place? Is the minister aware if there are plans to put in place that subcommittee that the Premier talked about during her leadership campaign?

Hon. M. de Jong: The hon. member correctly points out that several months ago the now Premier spoke, as part of this discussion, about her interest in looking at the possibility of establishing a committee to examine overall health spending, trends in health spending. The
[ Page 7331 ]
member or his colleague will be able to put this question to her directly next week, but again, I think, it's a reflection of the ongoing concern around accelerating growth in health care spending.

[1445]

The specific question is whether such a committee presently exists. It does not. There are discussions taking place about the possible composition and mandate, but I think the member's specific question was whether that committee presently exists and is meeting. It does not.

I hasten to add the obvious. The Premier is set to take her seat in this chamber on Monday of next week, I believe, and has obviously had a full plate these past six or seven weeks.

M. Farnworth: I, too, look forward to the Premier taking her place in this chamber and being able to answer, or not answer, questions both in question period and in other parts of our legislative program.

In the service plan…. I mean, when we're talking about health care, we're not just talking about delivery of service; we are talking about the dollars and cents that go to it and the fact that there are considerable cost pressures on our health care system that aren't going away anytime soon. The government has made a great deal about the challenges posed by cost increases in our health care system. So can the minister provide an overview of what areas are seeing the highest rates of cost inflation?

The 2011-2012 service plan says that we must use innovation to make strategic changes to keep costs under control. Can the minister tell us what specific initiatives are being undertaken to control costs?

Hon. M. de Jong: Member, apologies for the delay.

I'm going to do this in two parts. I think the member asked, first: what are the cost drivers, essentially; and then: what is government doing in response? If I can, let's deal in general terms with cost drivers and perhaps explore that a little bit and then get to some of the initiatives that are being pursued in response to that.

First, the obvious is our demographic changes, and the member will be alive to this, I suppose, as we all are. We are an older population. We are living to be older. The member knows all about the data that relates to our usage of the health care system as we get older — today's 60 was yesterday's 50, and all of those terminologies. So demographically those changes are driving costs.

[1450]

Utilization, I'm reminded, doesn't just relate to the fact that people are older and, therefore going to the doctor more. We are using medical services more as 30- and 40-year-olds than was previously the case. So we are more apt to access health care providers and health care services than was previously the case.

Drug costs, of course, continue to escalate. We have seen some examples of that recently and some examples relating to rare disease and rare drug treatments that cost $300,000, $400,000 or even half a million dollars a year. Those are exceptions, but it doesn't take many exceptions along those lines to represent significant cost drivers.

The fourth thing that I'll mention is inflation. One can argue that generally speaking, general rates of inflation have been trending to the lower side. But as again I'm reminded, on a budget the size of health care, even 2 percent represents a significant cost.

Within health care delivery itself — whether we're talking about technology, equipment or professionals — in some cases those inflationary costs have increased by far more than 2 percent per annum. So there is a built-in inflationary component that is, I'm advised, unique to health care services and, in some cases, health-related equipment and technology that is also a factor.

There are four areas. I know that the member may want to ask about any one of those or may want me to move on to some of the things that government is doing in response.

M. Farnworth: There are a couple of areas where I will ask some particular questions around those general areas the minister has outlined. But I think it's probably best that I let him go through the specific initiatives that they're undertaking with regard to them, and I'll see whether they cover off the questions I have or whether I have additional questions related to them.

Hon. M. de Jong: In response to the four areas of pressure that I mentioned, the Health Ministry, I think, has done a reasonably good job over the last year or couple of years trying to establish the basis upon which to respond to that. This is, by definition, fairly general, and we'll drill down from there.

Four pillars against which we try to measure our response and our actions. Firstly, and I would say arguably most important, health promotion and effective health promotion. Prevention and self-management. This may be unnecessarily apocalyptic on my part, but I would say this based on what I have seen at least as a participant in this chamber over close to 18 years and a member of cabinet for a decade. If we continue to simply try to fund disease management, we are not going to be able to do it.

We're going to eviscerate other departments of government and then run out of money. It just won't be possible, given the aging demographic. So prevention, health promotion…. It is challenging, because it is obviously a longer-term solution, and the challenge is diverting scarce resources today from other areas.

[1455]

When we talk about spending $20 million plus on funding a program to help people quit smoking…. Now, I think you can make an argument. We have the lowest
[ Page 7332 ]
incidence of smoking in the country, at 15 percent. If you could take that number down to 12, I think you'd, arguably, save billions of dollars in terms of health care costs down the road. The challenge is finding the $20 million or $25 million today, which needs to come from somewhere.

That's a prevention strategy today, a prescription for health — aligning patients and families with their doctors so that they can help. There's an incentive to build a health care prevention plan. So that's one — effective health promotion and prevention.

Quality primary and community-based care is the second of the four pillars. The highest-quality hospital care is the third, and improved innovation and efficiency, generally, within the delivery of health care in B.C. Those would be the four general pillars, principles, against which actions are measured and considered before proceeding.

M. Farnworth: The member raises a couple of interesting topics. I just want to touch on the one in terms of spending the money on the smoking cessation. I agree. The costs you save over the long term are significant.

One of the challenges that we face, of course, is…. It's like anything. There is also an incremental cost. Often it's very easy to spend an initial sum of money to get people to change their habit, and you'll make significant progress on a broad base of people who will change in response to efforts by government to get them to change.

But then you also come to trying to get from 20 percent down to 10. That 10 percent is much harder and requires incrementally a greater amount of money being spent in order to achieve that. It may well be worthwhile, and spending that money is no doubt a good thing to do, but it's a lot more effort than it was to get the original 30 or 40 percent to change their habit.

So when the ministry does programs like that, do they take into account any analysis of the incremental difficulty in reaching that goal when they make the decision to spend the money in those particular areas? I'll use the smoking one as an example. Were there studies done saying: "Okay, if we took that $20 million, we can get it down, and we've got some empirical evidence to back that up"?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll begin by acknowledging and agreeing with what I think was the underlying proposition, which is, as I understand it, that as you move from the 30 percent to the 20 percent to the 10 percent, it gets tougher. There's probably a hard-core group of smokers out there that you're not going to change. For whatever reason, they have come to the conclusion that they either don't have to or don't want to, or they are immune, or they don't care.

[1500]

I guess the philosophical question that flows from that, if you get to that point, is to what extent the rest of society should contribute to the cost associated with that choice. But that's probably another conversation that we can have. It's an interesting one, because as you work your way down…. We're still at the point, though, where we believe that by removing, dare I say, some of the impediments — or I could say even excuses — that people might utilize to explain their refusal or inability to quit….

The funding announcement of several weeks ago was designed to address some of those impediments. There are some people who may have trouble fiscally, may not have the money to purchase some of the services that are available to help quit. We think this is a good investment. I have to say this: we have not set a target. We have not said: "As a result of this, by 2014 we expect the rate of smoking to be 14 percent or 13 percent."

We had actually just this morning in Vancouver a family who accessed QuitNow at the time when the mother was pregnant, before the funding announcement. It's a very compelling story. They decided that they were going to avail themselves of the program and have had their last cigarette together, the mother and the father, and are now raising, I think, three children. So we think the investment is worth it.

I understand the member's point. There is a temptation to say: "Well, surely set a target." I think this might be one of those examples where we believe the investment is sound, and if we can reduce by it 1, 2 or 3 percent, the investment is worthwhile.

M. Farnworth: I accept the minister's comments on this. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that….

Given the statements that have been made about limited health care resources and making sure we get the maximum benefit for our dollar, one of the things I want to make sure the ministry is doing is some really good, solid analysis on programs before they're unveiled. That’s so people know — is it new money, is it money that's been reallocated from somewhere else, or is there a sense of goals that are achievable? — that given competing choices, we're actually going with the best choices that will make the longest difference to our health care system and to the health of the population over a long time.

Talking about smoking…. I think that has to continue to be a priority in terms of reducing the incidence of the rate of smoking in the province of British Columbia.

But when you look at that and you compare it to, for example, childhood obesity and unhealthy eating habits…. If you've got a pot of money that can go to changing the habits of a population, what I'm wondering is, does the ministry do studies that say: "You know what? We actually can get a bigger bang for our dollar in this area that's going to have a significant impact on our
[ Page 7333 ]
health care system down the road, dealing with a problem that we all know is far more prevalent today than it was 20, 25 years ago"?

So when these types of decisions are made, is the analysis taking place in a comparative look at how that money could be spent in terms of trying to achieve long-term health care goals?

[1505]

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, a couple of things come to mind. The member, and I think quite properly, raised the issue of obesity. I'll say this as a general statement. Here's what my sense is. The single most important thing we can do to improve health outcomes rests in education. The better educated someone is, the better educated a family is, the better equipped they are to make sound decisions. So the linkage between education and health outcomes is, I think, a very strong one and one that has been established empirically.

Obesity. You look at the fact that…. I think the latest study I saw showed that somewhere between 45 percent and 50 percent of British Columbians qualify as being overweight or obese. Look, I teeter on the brink, so I'm hesitant about preaching. Our lifestyle has changed. I live in Abbotsford. The closest thing we have to a rush hour within town is at three o'clock when school is out. No one walks home anymore. That's got to have an impact.

The modes of entertainment that young kids are drawn to now are as likely to involve the computer screen as they are a baseball diamond or a soccer field. So the role for parents, for caregivers to ensure that children have access to that physical activity is more important now than ever.

I'm told, through some of the analyses and studies that I have been given, that the ministry has been undertaking that, along with obesity, sodium intake is a huge problem. It's not the stuff you shake on your steak — although I suppose that amplifies the problem. It's the built-in sodium content in manufactured foods. We talk about sugar and how it contributes to obesity, bad teeth and dental hygiene. Salt has…. In terms of hypertension, heart disease, the linkage is as direct.

So one of the things the member will see in the weeks and months ahead is a concerted effort on the part of the ministry — and I think it's valid to talk a little bit about this because we will be utilizing some resources — to provide information to people about the impact of sodium and salt in their diets and smart decisions that they can make in choosing the correct kind of foods and manufactured foods. Check the sodium content on the back of the box.

These are all things driven by studies and driven by the data that has been collected. Changing the behaviour is what represents the biggest challenge — the combination of encouraging people, providing them with the information they need to make wise choices — and not always resorting to the heavy hand of the state to compel behaviour but assisting people in making smart decisions on their own. Those are all part and parcel of the health promotion and prevention agenda that the ministry is endeavouring to set for itself.

M. Farnworth: The issue of health promotion is an important one, and making changes in lifestyle, I think, is one of the keys, too, in dealing with long-term health care costs and also the long-term health of the public at large.

We have some ability to do that, and I think that government does need to take an active role in that regard. That's why, when we do, we need to make sure that we're spending our dollars where we're going to get the most bang for the buck. That's why I'm asking: are studies being done?

The minister makes a good point about kids getting driven to school, as opposed to how when we were kids, we walked to school. In fact, the idea of suggesting to my parents a ride to school would have, no doubt, been met with stunned disbelief and probably a smack across the ear and then being pushed out the door and told: "You will walk, and I don't care if it's raining. When we were kids, it was ten miles to school uphill and ten miles back from school uphill."

[1510]

It's a different world today. There's an expectation that kids get driven to school, and that has consequences in terms of physical activity. There's a whole range of issues, which we don't have time for, that we could get into discussing around education, physical fitness and the like.

I would note, when the minister said that he was teetering on the brink, that during my leadership campaign I put on about 12 pounds, I think, much to my annoyance. A habit of wanting to eat Nanaimo bars at three o'clock in the morning certainly doesn't help. I think what it does, though, is that it illustrates the challenges that we as a modern society have. There are roles that government can play, whether it's dealing with tobacco, dealing with alcohol or childhood obesity, consumption of sodium and issues like that. That's one aspect.

Another aspect that we don't have control over is around demographics and the fact that we are aging as a society, particularly in British Columbia. I'm wondering: has the ministry done work in terms of how this province is changing demographically, particularly in the population aged over 55, and the trends that we're seeing in British Columbia in relation to the rest of the country and the impact that that has on health care funding in British Columbia?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, there are a couple of things that I can alert the member and other members of the House to. I've got copies of this stuff, so I'm happy to
[ Page 7334 ]
provide the member with it. One of the questions was: are we tracking demographic change within the province? The short answer is yes, in a variety of different ways.

We can see…. I have this very colourful chart that tells me and tells us that in the Okanagan Valley, for example, population is trending a certain way. I'm happy to share that information with the member.

On that front, I ask the question generally, and I'm advised that, despite what we may think, we're not particularly out of sync with the rest of the country. It's not a question of British Columbia having this abnormally high seniors population vis-à-vis other parts of Canada, although I suppose individual communities may vary a little bit.

[1515]

I wonder if I might use the member's question, though, as an opportunity to at least put on the record this bit of interesting utilization data. Again, I'll make sure that the member gets this if he doesn't already have it.

It speaks to the average cost of utilization for particular age groups. I am between the ages of 45 and 50 now. People under the age of 45 generally spend, on average, $2,000 accessing health care services; people between the ages of 45 and 64, just over $3,000; people between the ages of 65 and 74, just about $6,000; people between the ages of 75 and 84, $10,500; and people over the age of 85, in excess of $18,000. So it's a dramatic increase through that, particularly 75 to 85-plus.

When you consider that we have just over 1.2 million people between the ages of 45 and 65, that wave is going to move through, and I have seen nothing to indicate, at this point, that those costs are going to come down. But it's interesting. Again, I will shamelessly use the opportunity afforded by the member to make this point, and it's based on studies from the experts. If each of us exercised for 30 minutes a day, controlled our weight, ate reasonably well and stopped smoking, we could reduce our risk of chronic disease by up to 80 percent.

That $18,000 speaks to chronic disease. Everything I've read indicates that that's where that cost comes from. If all British Columbians had a normal, healthy weight for their height and were physically active and didn't smoke, the studies that the ministry has conducted and accessed say that the province could avoid over $3.8 billion in economic and health care costs every year — almost $4 billion.

Now, the member has been involved in discussions with other ministers and other…. Imagine. I have heard debates with ministries where the difference between anxiety and nirvana is $10 million. We're talking about the potential, if we performed better as a society, for $4 billion in savings and improved health outcomes. The stakes are high. It's why I say that, at the end of the day, the sustainability of health care as we know it is tied to this notion of prevention and well-being.

M. Farnworth: I think the point is well taken that prevention is a key to long-term sustainability not only from a financial setting but also from a healthier population and better quality of life for people. One of the key issues I think we need to address in terms of demographic changes is how we are changing in this province and the wave that is coming through.

I know that one of the questions that is often raised and is of concern, and I guess it will be addressed probably in greater detail tomorrow when we discuss seniors' health issues in much deeper context, is how that impacts people retiring to British Columbia and the impact that it has on communities and government's response to that. From what I'm hearing the minister saying, is that as a province, as a whole, that retiring wave is not seen to be making itself apparent yet in British Columbia.

One thing I know — the minister is in the 45-to-50 demographic, and I'm now slightly moved past that, to the 50-to-55 demographic — is that people do start looking to retire.

[1520]

They start going: "You know what? I don't like minus 30 in Edmonton or minus 40 in Regina. Let's go somewhere where it's not quite so cold and I don't have quite so much snow to shovel." There's only one place in the country that has those wonderful qualities, and that's British Columbia.

Is there an expectation, as this wave moves through, that it will impact British Columbia to a greater extent than other provinces? Has the ministry been looking at that?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm going to see if I can get the member some definitive demographic data, because quite frankly, it seems to me that as a destination spot for retirees in the country, that should reveal itself in the data. It may be offset by the fact that we're also attracting more than our fair share of young families and other immigrants, so that as a percentage of the population, it doesn't change that much. I think what I want to do is, between today and tomorrow, get some actual demographic summary material that I can give to the member.

I think we can say this, and I agree with the member. British Columbia is going to remain a spot that folks on the Prairies will be thinking about coming to, whether it's the Okanagan, the Lower Mainland, Comox Valley. People love coming here, and when they get to a point where they don't want to shovel snow anymore, if they've had any experience in British Columbia, particularly on the west coast, they are drawn and inclined to come here.

M. Farnworth: The minister actually just raised the second point where I wanted to go with this. What I'm trying to get an understanding of is the pressures on
[ Page 7335 ]
our health care system right now in terms of population and demographics. There are funding constraints. There's inflation. There's technology. There are all those things. And then there's the response from government in terms of: "Okay, how do we deal with this?"

One of the issues the minister just raised is an influx of young families and new immigrants. That itself brings advantages, but it also brings challenges, in the sense of cultural issues in terms of how health care is delivered but, more importantly, the supply of doctors who are able to work with a particular community, understand the nature of the community, understand the language.

[1525]

That invariably means physicians or health care professionals coming from those countries where we're receiving our new citizens from and the issues around qualifications and getting recognized in terms of their ability to practise their profession, in this case health care professions, here in British Columbia.

My question would be: how has the ministry been responding to those challenges? Are we keeping statistics and looking at analyzing the impact that the significant immigration flow into the province is having on our health care system and the challenges in some of those key areas in terms of how we're able to handle it taking place? Has work been done in that area?

The Chair: Hon. Members, I believe we've been joined in the gallery by students from Daniel Woodward Elementary School in Richmond. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll begin by saying that to my view — and my guess is the member agrees with this — the benefits that accrue from young families immigrating to this province from elsewhere in the world far outweigh some of what might be short-term challenges. At a time when the ratio between those who are working and those past the age of retirement is far different than what it was 20 or 30 years ago, we are in a position where we not only benefit greatly from people selecting our country and our province as a place they want to come to, but it's actually an essential part of the overall equation for economic success.

We have to be competitive. I think that is, going forward, one of the things. We can say it falls outside of the specific realm of health care, but if we're going to get to where we want to be as a province and enhance our standard of living, we are going to need to recognize that it is competitive in terms of attracting people. They have choices, whether they're in health care or any other economic field. We are, I think, proving that this economic question is one that is not separate and apart from the health care formula.

We are, as the member knows, training more physicians domestically, upwards of twice as many as we were a decade ago, and that is significant. I have met a number of individuals who are either enrolled or in the process of graduating from those expanded medical programs for physicians or for nurses, for that matter, who are first-generation — I guess we still use that term — Canadians.

Their families, their parents immigrated here, so they have a cultural awareness that perhaps others don't, and they are in a position to address some of the unique needs that members of particular communities might face.

In addition to that, I am advised that some additional steps have been taken on the recruiting front. The number of entry-level residency positions for foreign-trained doctors has tripled from six to 18 — still modest numbers but a significant improvement from where it was back in the early part of the decade — and 12 of those positions are in family medicine. So that is significant.

[1530]

We've endeavoured to expedite the immigration process for internationally trained doctors under the provincial nominee program through the Ministry of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development.

My experience has been that there are two components to making this work. One is government — provincial, federal — expediting the entry of someone who wants to come here and practise their profession. The other is professional, and that is ensuring that there is a regime in place, as administered by the medical college or the self-governing body, that responsibly recognizes those credentials.

It is about a balance, because whilst I am one of those persons who historically have been very critical of the phenomenon of the neurosurgeon driving the cab, the grossest example of people's skills going to waste, I know this also. British Columbians want and expect and deserve to know that the people administering to their needs in medical facilities are properly credentialed. So finding that balance in a way that meets both of those objectives is important.

The short answer: some progress has been made. We are training far more people domestically. Some of those people are uniquely positioned to address some of the unique challenges within particular communities. We are also doing a better job recruiting from afar, though I would say, particularly with respect to the latter, there is still more that can be done.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for his answer. We're going to get deeper into that when we talk levels of staffing and doctors and nurses and health care professionals and the training that's taking place.

The point he makes is a good one, in response to my question. That is, we are seeing significant demographic changes in this province that bring with them, I think, significant advantages, both economic and social, but
[ Page 7336 ]
also, at the same time, challenges in terms of our health care system.

We're seeing it in terms of seniors. We're seeing it in terms of new arrivals. Those are things that the government needs to be aware of in determining its health policy because, as the minister stated, there are a number of drivers. That's one of the key ones in terms of health care costs in the province today. The minister has mentioned some others.

Inflation. It affects everything, and I think — the minister doesn't have to respond — that it does allow government to give an answer to questions from opposition that we are spending more money today than ever before. While that is true, I think inflation is often a key component of that.

One of the areas that I would be interested in hearing the minister's comments on is: what is happening in terms of inflation within health care delivery? Where are the major drivers? Is it wages and benefits? Is it technology and the fact that 20 years ago a heart monitor was a heart monitor or a bed was a bed, and quite often it had a life expectancy of ten years?

Now, you bring out, say, a heart monitor, and technology changes it. Two years later there's a new, improved, better one. I'd like to have a sense of where inflation is, the role of inflation and how it's playing out within our health care system. It does, I think, appear to most people, or to people who look at it and ask questions, significantly higher than other areas of government service delivery or within the private sector.

[1535]

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, again, the proposition that I think the hon. member lays before the House is not one with which I will quarrel. The inflationary trends cut across the various components.

I will say, to preface my remarks, that I don't want to leave the impression that the government holds the valuable, incredible people that do the work responsible for the costs. Yes, when wages go up, there are costs. I am told that across the fold a 1 percent increase in wages equates to roughly $150 million. So that's $150 million, but the budget has gone up by a lot more than $150 million. That's one part of it.

I was in Kamloops at Royal Inland and was shown the new CT scanner. The new CT scanner is state of the art; it's fantastic. It replaces the old CT scanner. I can't say this for certain, but it wouldn't surprise me if the new CT scanner was at least 50 percent, and maybe more, more expensive than the old CT scanner.

Now, the technicians and the physicians there pointed out that it represents, as a diagnostic tool, an incredibly more valuable instrument than its predecessor. But the price of this diagnostic equipment is measured in the millions of dollars.

Drug costs have gone up. I am reminded by officials that we have managed to keep those increases in the range of 4 percent. They were, for a period of time some years ago, rising much more rapidly.

[1540]

Even that involves asking clinicians to make some very difficult choices about what is going to be covered, what is not going to be covered and which drugs are going to be made available. And when it comes to rare diseases, and we've seen some examples of that in the media of late as well, those are very, very difficult decisions that have to be made.

So technology, drugs, personnel — but I don't want to overstate that as part of the equation — these are all drivers of the increases that we see.

I think somewhere in the member's question was perhaps the underlying notion that with the technology, the equipment, the drugs, there is an element of specialization which means, on many occasions, that the supplier sets the price and that those of us who are consumers of the service or who purchase on behalf of the public are in a position where there is not a lot of room for negotiation. We try to negotiate as aggressively and effectively as we can to get the best value possible for the taxpayers that are paying for it.

M. Farnworth: No, I appreciate the minister's answer, because I think one of the things that's often out there is: "Oh, it's just a case of wages driving health care costs." The reality is that an increase in the health care sector…. Increases occur in every other sector of government and in the private sector, as well, and other areas of the public sector, yet health care costs are rising faster than all those other sectors. There are other factors at play here that I want to get it on the record a bit — issues around drug costs, which we'll explore a bit further this afternoon, and also equipment.

In my mind what it speaks to in health care is that we can approach things as a province from a B.C. perspective, or we can recognize that in many cases these are issues and problems that face not just British Columbia but other provinces as well, other jurisdictions, in terms of the delivery of health care.

That also relates in terms of how we fund health care in B.C. I mean, we've been talking about the cost pressures and some of the drivers of costs in health care. One of the things I want to get to in a few minutes is the issue of how we fund it, both at the local and provincial but also at the national level.

Just to ask this question in terms of equipment — I think this is the appropriate time to ask it — do we engage…? When we purchase major equipment — CT scans and MRIs, for example — do we do it in isolation as British Columbia? Or do we sit down and work with other provinces — let's say Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and Saskatchewan — who are also buying these types of equipment, and say: "Well, let's hang on a sec"? Rather than all of us going to these companies individually as
[ Page 7337 ]
provinces, do we get together and go: "You know what? We have more leverage if we work together"? Is there any sort of strategy to do purchasing in that regard?

[1545]

Hon. M. de Jong: It seems to me, first of all, that the short answer is yes, there is collaborative purchasing, but I want to give the member as accurate an answer as possible. I am advised that most of that to date relates to — and I'm not sure I'm using the right term — what I would call consumables and drugs.

We were speaking a moment ago about large-equipment purchases. It has not evolved to that point, and one wonders whether the volume is such that it could. There are procurement practices and policies in place that are designed to elicit the best possible price on that large equipment. But thus far the interprovincial collaboration on drug pricing and purchasing, a specific agreement with the province of Alberta around the purchasing of consumables, is also in place.

I'm told, just so the member has some appreciation of the order of magnitude here, that according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, western government drug plans — B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the Territories — spent a combined total of $2.2 billion on drug plans in 2007. I guess that has gone up since then, but there are savings that are being realized. The equivalent figure for all of Canada in '07 was $8.7 billion.

There is a joint agreement in place for the purchasing of drugs. That seems to have gone reasonably well between Alberta and British Columbia on consumables, and it remains to be seen whether or not the next step can be taken, as part of that collaboration, around some of the other larger-ticket items, although they are purchased far less frequently.

M. Farnworth: I look back to my time as Health Minister. It's 12 years ago now, which is a long time. One of the things that struck me during that time was how many of the challenges that we face as a province are shared by other provinces and the need, I think, in many cases for not just provincial and collaborative strategies with one province but a sense of the opportunity that exists, with collaboration on a national scale and national strategies, for dealing with a number of the issues and the challenges that we face in health care. Events over the last 12 years, I think, have reinforced that idea with me.

While the minister has stated issues on drugs, and we'll come to that in more detail later on, and he's touched on the issue around Alberta with consumables, I actually think that there is a considerable scope. The minister says these purchases are made more infrequently, and I think that yes, that's correct. They are made more infrequently, but judging from the number….

I think he mentioned $8.7 billion on equipment. That's a significant amount of money that the provinces spend on equipment, and much of that equipment is very high-tech. It will be order-specific, and its manufacturing process requires a commitment. That is one of the reasons why it's expensive.

I think there is an opportunity there not just for British Columbia but the provinces in general, if they work and coordinate their purchases around some of those — particularly expensive high-tech equipment such as MRIs, CAT scans, what have you — to be in a position to leverage savings for the taxpayer in the health care system with regards to that aspect of health care expenditure.

[1550]

My question to the minister would be: if that has not taken place, would the minister commit to looking at the potential or possibility of those kinds of initiatives or an initiative like that with other provinces?

Hon. M. de Jong: Just to follow up on a bit of the chronology, which may be relevant to the question that the hon. member has asked, back in July of '09 the governments of B.C. and Alberta announced an agreement to consolidate the procurement of drugs, supplies and equipment used in hospitals through HealthPRO, a group-purchasing organization owned by participating health agencies. I am advised that Saskatchewan and the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority have since joined that collaboration with B.C. and Alberta.

B.C. Health Shared Services is now in the process of aligning health authority purchasing with HealthPRO contracts. I'm further advised, and this perhaps goes directly to the point that the member was making, that back in August of last year, at a meeting of the Council of the Federation, the Premiers for the provinces agreed to establish a pan-Canadian purchasing alliance to consolidate public sector procurement of common drugs, medical supplies and equipment where appropriate.

It seems the foundation has been laid for an expansion of this pan-Canadian purchasing strategy. It is firmly established in some areas — like drugs, like consumables — and perhaps less established in some of the other areas.

The member will get no argument from me. Where we can, it makes sense for us to consolidate on a national basis. We are an incredibly large geographic nation with a comparably small population, and where we can maximize the benefits by working together, it makes sense to me to do so.

M. Farnworth: Thank you for the answer. I hope that British Columbia is active in terms of driving the initiatives out of that. I do think, particularly around major equipment, that there is opportunity there for the provinces, not just British Columbia, to improve what we do have but also to use it as leverage.
[ Page 7338 ]

I was going to go to the health accord, but what I think I might do at this particular point is segue into — because it crops up in the minister's answers, and it does so because it makes sense — the issue of the other cost driver, which is pharmaceuticals and drugs and the costs that are taking place with drugs.

Do we need to get additional staff at all?

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Okay, in that case, it's probably good to take a little break for five minutes.

The Chair: A five-minute recess, hon. Members.

The committee recessed from 3:54 p.m. to 4:04 p.m.

[D. Black in the chair.]

M. Farnworth: Before the break we were just starting a discussion on pharmaceuticals, drugs and cost pressures on our health care system. Can the minister just outline what's been happening with pharmaceuticals in terms of the rate of increase, the issues around new drugs coming onto the market and the role that pharmaceuticals are now playing within our health care system? I guess a brief outline of where we are in terms of….

[1605]

I remember when I was…. Well, 12 years ago the issue at that point was that pharmaceutical use was coming very close to being the same or would be passing invasive procedures. So just a sense of where we are right now in British Columbia with the pharmaceuticals within our health care system.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member is correct about the increasing order of magnitude. In terms of the raw numbers we can go back to '91-92. Twenty years ago the cost would have been $228 million. For budget year 2011 it is $1.1 billion. So in addition to inflationary pressures, there are some other significantly growing costs obviously built in.

But I'm reminded…. I should introduce the member in the House to Bob Nakagawa, who is ADM from the pharmaceutical services division of the ministry. From what I've just said, the member will appreciate that he oversees a significant portion of the expenditure of public moneys.

I am advised by him that those costs relate to a variety of things: increased costs for specific drugs, but also significant advances and a broader range of pharmaceutical products — clot busters for heart conditions, statins for cholesterol. We go through HIV treatment. The development and the advances relate to drugs that are commonly used and especially drugs for very rare conditions, some of which are very, very expensive. So we're looking at about $1.1 billion worth of expenditure for 2010-2011.

M. Farnworth: What it shows is that for a variety of reasons the rate of use of pharmaceuticals and the cost to our health care system have increased dramatically. There are, as the minister rightly stated, drugs that do things that couldn't be dreamed of 20 years ago, that are now able to treat conditions, extend people's lives, quality of health and quality of life and all those things. It's important that we're able to supply and be able to provide that medication to British Columbians.

At the same time, we've seen the development of new drugs that are often either slightly better or…. The efficacy rate is very similar, yet those are more expensive than traditional drugs that have been in place. The demand for them can have an impact on our health care budget as well.

[1610]

So governments have had to not only respond to the advances in terms of providing new pharmaceutical treatments but also to deal with the challenges of drugs whose efficacy may be an incremental increase or very similar but yet are heavily marketed compared to drugs that have been around for a long time.

A number of remedies or initiatives have been undertaken in this jurisdiction and different jurisdictions to be able to deal with that and deal with the advances and to ensure that we're able to provide as much as possible.

I'd be interested to hear the minister's thoughts on, for example, how reference-based pricing is working, any changes around the issue of reference-based pricing, the impact that it's had and studies the ministry has done in terms of the effect of reference-based pricing on the cost of pharmaceuticals in the province of British Columbia.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll start here, and there may be questions that flow from this. I think the point can be made that on balance, reference-based pricing does serve us — serve the public, serve the funder — well. But I'm advised that the way it has evolved, new drugs within a particular class of drugs are priced at the same price point, whereas there used to be a range.

To that extent, referencing the price doesn't result in additional savings. So there's a class of drugs, a new drug comes along, it's fit within that class, and the price point is set. To that extent, the kinds of savings that you might have seen when there was a range don't exist in the same way.

M. Farnworth: What was the reason for that change, and when did it take place?

[1615]

Hon. M. de Jong: A complex area. I want to make sure I provide the member and the House with accurate
[ Page 7339 ]
information, and if I don't, I can assure the member that I will immediately correct it based on the advice.

I am told that within a class of drugs, the federal agency involved will set the first price point, and that up until the early part of this century, you would, depending on the class of drugs, see a pretty wide discrepancy — could be upwards of a hundred dollars. But starting in the early part of this century, 2001, '02, '03 — in there — the manufacturers quickly realized that there was very little to be achieved by varying from that federally set price point, so the range that used to characterize or used to exist within some of these classes of drugs has eventually disappeared.

That is largely the result of pricing policy set by the manufacturers, who take their mark from the price set by the federal agency and move to it so that there's very little variation.

I'm going to check with Mr. Nakagawa to make sure that is an accurate description of what has taken place over the last ten or 12 years.

M. Farnworth: Let me see if I've got this right. The way it used to be…. I'll do pain relief because that's easy to understand. You have aspirin — been around forever and has a standard price of, I don't know, let's say ten cents a tablet. Then you have your new, improved Voltaren, and it was like two bucks. The doctor would prescribe: "Take two aspirin." It would bill PharmaCare ten cents — okay? But if you really needed Voltaren, the doctor, the physician would write an explanation and we, PharmaCare, would pay for Voltaren. So you had a significant price difference between the ten cents and the two bucks.

Now what you're saying is that the feds' drug pricing sets a price point for pain relievers — okay? The way I understand what you're saying, that point — is it set at the cheapest or the most expensive? Do we know what that price point is, what's determining that price point? And did I have my explanation correct?

[1620]

Hon. M. de Jong: Hopefully, this'll help the member; it helped me a little bit. No new categories have been added to the reference-based pricing scheme since 1997, I'm told. What has developed since then is the federal agency that I talked about, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, which is now involved in some of those other newly evolved categories.

The member's example, I think, also touched on a second component to this, and that is the phenomenon that we as legislators and MLAs frequently see, which is the opportunity for a patient to be diagnosed by a doctor and for that doctor to say: "In my view, your situation is unique, and you need a particular type of anti-inflammatory that may be more expensive than the generic or the one set in the reference-based pricing."

That continues to occur. It does involve filling out the form and the doctor indicating why that higher-priced pharmaceutical is required, but that part of this still remains. It is still possible for a patient, through their physician, to gain access to a different product, even a higher-priced product, on a case-by-case basis. I hope that was part of what the member was exploring in that question.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for his answer. Yeah, that was one of the issues that I wanted to try and explore a little bit. I appreciate it because I learn through this estimates process, like he does, some of the inner workings of this ministry with which we are both newly getting acquainted.

The minister said that there have not been any categories added since 1997. Can he explain why that is, why no new categories have been added since 1997? Is there a rationale for it? Are there any plans to add new categories?

[1625]

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the explanation that I've been offered is that historically the impetus for governments initially — surprise, surprise — was the opportunity to realize some significant cost savings because the spread within these original categories was so large and bringing a reference point resulted in some real savings.

The advice I've received today is that in what might otherwise be considered as new categories, the spread simply isn't there. The manufacturers draw close to the price point that is set by the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. The prospect of realizing significant savings by expanding into new categories simply isn't there in the way that it was in the early part of the 1990s when the original shift was made.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate that answer. When the minister says that price disparity is no longer there, does that apply to…? Are the categories we're talking about, then, new categories of drugs that didn't exist when reference-based pricing was put in place? If a new anti-inflammatory came along today, would it be captured by the reference-based regime that is still in place, or is it just like, I don't know, some new drug that has been developed in the last five years?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the short answer is yes. The all-new, improved Aspirin, not to be trite, would, I am advised, likely be captured by the existing classification scheme and then find its place. There would need to be decisions around whether it was going to be covered at all, but in terms of whether it is captured by the existing classification system, the best advice I have is that it would be.
[ Page 7340 ]

M. Farnworth: That leads me to my next question. Who makes that decision?

[1630]

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the question related to the drug review process. It would begin nationally through the common drug review agency, which is national. It involves the provinces, the Territories. They provide a recommendation, which then comes to the province, to the provincial Drug Benefit Council comprised of clinicians, economists, a range of individuals who ultimately make the decision. So it starts national with a recommendation and then flows to the provincial Drug Benefit Council.

M. Farnworth: So the Drug Benefit Council of the province makes a decision, and then the ministry acts on that decision. When that drug council makes a decision…. The determination — is that something the ministry generally accepts, or is there another decision point before something's adopted?

Hon. M. de Jong: To follow this through, we talk about the national body making the recommendation, which goes to the provincial Drug Benefit Council. They in turn make a recommendation following their work to the ministry, to the branch, and it is ultimately the ministry that makes a decision.

I asked, anticipating perhaps what the next question might be, what the mechanism was for that ministerial-level decision. It is not an OIC. It is done as a matter of policy, so it's at the policy level that the decision around a particular drug is made.

M. Farnworth: How would the Therapeutics Initiative have fitted into this process?

[1635]

Hon. M. de Jong: I can advise the member, based on what I've been advised, that the drugs that fall into the category we are now discussing would be those that, for one reason or another — and I have not explored this in detail in the conversations — have not been reviewed or considered at the national level by the common drug review agency.

I am told that would be in the neighbourhood of 15 — some years, ten; some years, maybe 20 — drugs in a year. Those drugs would formerly all have been considered at UBC by the TI. Now, of course, in the aftermath of some changes, it would not exclusively be UBC and the TI but perhaps any number of a few other agencies.

I think the point for the first part of the question is that there are very few drugs that require an analysis that don't come via the national review process, and those are the drugs that I think we are talking about now.

M. Farnworth: The drugs we've been talking about, captured by reference-based pricing or coming into a new class, have been cleared at the national level. That would come through the common drug review council. That comes to the ministry with a recommendation. The decision made is a policy-based one. It's not an OIC-based decision. So I'm correct in that. I see heads nodding. That's with those drugs that have come through that route.

Now, other drugs come through the Therapeutics Initiative. Am I correct in that? If I am seeing heads nodding, then I will go on to the next question. I'm not seeing heads nodding. So if the minister could explain how the TI was supposed to work in terms of the drugs that it deals with.

[1640]

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm going to go through the note, which may be the best way to convey the information.

M. Farnworth: Do we need to have additional people here if we're going to talk about Riverview when we're getting to facilities?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the heads-up.

I am advised and can convey to the member and the committee something I said earlier: that the majority of clinical evidence reviews in Canada are completed by the national common drug review agency, which was introduced in 2003. Since the CDR, common drug review, was introduced, the amount of work and number of reviews done by the Therapeutics Initiative has declined substantially. I am told that in 2010 the TI only completed six reviews for the ministry, compared to up to 20 in past years.

In August 2010 a request for qualifications was issued to expand the available list of reviewers to complete academic drug reviews. The Therapeutics Initiative chose to apply to the RFQ as three separate groups, I am told, all of which were successful. These reviews represented one of the three services that the TI previously provided as part of a million-dollar contract with the government.

The Therapeutics Initiative will continue to provide the other two services — health professional education and PharmaCare program evaluations, which evaluates whether drugs currently in use are safe and effective — at a fixed rate of $550,000. The new clinical evidence review contracts awarded to the TI have a value of up to $50,000 per year representing up to $150,000. Combined with the fixed rate for the other services, the TI will be receiving $700,000 a year from government.

The other clinical evidence review experts are the B.C. Drug and Poison Information Centre and Providence and Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute. They too receive contracts for up to $50,000 for the clinical
[ Page 7341 ]
review. So that's a bit of the history of the evolution of the TI and the clinical review process for what is now a much smaller number of drugs since the advent of the common drug review agency.

[1645]

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for his answer. But it still leaves some questions because in essence, when it was created, it received international acclaim in the work that it was doing. It put B.C. definitely on the leading edge of prescriptive drug policy. Harvard, the New England Journal of Medicine all looked at what was taking place and were very favourable to the work that it was doing and to the impact. The model that it represented was something that other jurisdictions could learn from in their ability to deal with rising drug costs.

My question is, then: how did the changes come about that changed it to where those same journals — they're not the opposition; they're not British Columbians — are saying, in essence:

"Replacing the Therapeutics Initiative with a process that's allowing drug companies to further their interests at the public expense will have predictable results. First, more drugs will be listed on B.C.'s formulary, and they will be expensive brand-name drugs with long patent lives ahead of them. As a consequence, B.C. drug costs will surely rise more rapidly than they otherwise would.

"Second, scientific judgment will yield to commercial pressures, with less reason to assume listed drugs are the most effective. In addition, the requirement to review drugs quickly makes it more likely that dangerous drugs like Vioxx come into widespread use. Prescription drug policies in the U.S. are heavily influenced and distorted by the pharmaceutical industry. It is a pity that B.C. wants to replace its exemplary system with something similar."

How would the minister respond to that criticism from outside of what, at the time when the Therapeutics Initiative was announced, was viewed as cutting edge and leading the way in terms of controlling the costs of pharmaceuticals in our health care system?

[1650]

Hon. M. de Jong: The member will hear no argument from me about the positive attention that the TI received and, more particularly, I think, the model for review that the TI received. The point I would make — based on all of the advice I am being provided with, previously and today — is that that model has not been changed.

The advent of the national reviewing agency has obviously shifted some of the work away from the provincial reviewing agency, but the approach that the TI initially introduced has not changed. What has changed is that it's no longer the exclusive domain of UBC and the Therapeutics Initiative. The other agencies that I have referred to, which we and the ministry believe are qualified to apply similar approaches and methodologies, are now doing that precise same work.

So the manner in which those reviews, albeit a smaller number of reviews, are undertaken has not changed. It is true that the work is no longer the exclusive domain of one single agency, but we believe that the same high standards are being applied by the other agencies, like the B.C. Drug and Poison Information Centre, Providence and the B.C. health research institute.

M. Farnworth: I understand the minister's answer, and I thank him for that. I'm still somewhat puzzled. If that work is not there, then…. When the decision was made to reduce funding for the Therapeutics Initiative, the minister at the time, the current Finance Minister, said that the reason this was done was because of the TI's resistance to meaningful stakeholder input.

I'm sort of interested as to…. I know that the minister is new in his position, as I am to the critic area. But perhaps the ministry may have a better sense of what resistance to meaningful stakeholder input means and why that would matter if the decision is that the work is now being done by this other agency at the national level.

Hon. M. de Jong: It won't surprise the member to know that I won't try to surmise what may have been in the mind of a predecessor or a colleague. I will say this, speaking for myself. I've been an MLA long enough to know that this is an area of public policy that attracts its share of controversy. It is a complex area, but oftentimes fraught with emotion when someone is seeking access to a drug that has been listed and covered and all the things that flow from that.

The Therapeutics Initiative has played, and continues to play, a major role in providing a key recommendation to government. Over the course of the years that they have been undertaking their work, at times some of those decisions have attracted criticism from a variety of quarters, depending on the nature of the recommendation that they made or the length of time it has taken to make the recommendation.

[1655]

The other agencies now involved will, I'm sure, experience some of the same commentary and at times criticism. It is true that there has been an element of, I suppose, competition introduced between those agencies to ensure that they remain at the top of their game in applying the very highest standards necessary for making recommendations to the government around the particular drugs that they are analyzing.

It has in the past been controversial. I am sure, given the stakes for people and citizens, for any one of these agencies involved in this work, there will be times when it is controversial again.

M. Farnworth: I think that's one of the points that we need to make. When reference-based pricing was brought in it was controversial. There was considerable resistance from the brand-name pharmaceutical industry. When a Therapeutics Initiative was brought in, again,
[ Page 7342 ]
there was considerable resistance from the brand-name pharmaceutical industry, in part because what they see is that what works in one jurisdiction gets adopted by other jurisdictions.

When you have something that is successful, that is being peer-reviewed by bodies such as the New England Journal of Medicine or the Harvard Medical School saying that they work, and they're not happy with that, then clearly there are efforts and a lot of resources brought to bear to make changes.

My concern is that change is brought about not in the best interests of, I think, long-term public policy but in terms of short-term. That's my concern around some of the changes that have taken place with the Therapeutics Initiative. It comes back to what I said earlier in terms of government making decisions on the best information they have and making decisions that are based on fact.

I would again ask a question here. There have been changes made to the Therapeutics Initiative. There's a baseline that has been established in terms of before the changes and after the changes. Has there been any kind of study done to measure the impact of the changes that have taken place with the Therapeutics Initiative from when the initiative was announced to when the changes were made and subsequent to the changes being made? Have there been any studies in that area?

[1700]

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it's actually an important line of questioning and discussion, because it at least affords an opportunity to describe what has taken place. The shift has admittedly provided the ministry with some flexibility because, instead of granting a single agency blanket funding, the funding now follows the individual drug reviews. I am reminded that that may provide some additional capacity to actually conduct additional reviews.

The expectation, however, is that there would be no change in terms of the quality of the product that emerges. The member may have heard me. I was asking: "Well, what does that mean? Does that mean timing, length of time for the completion of the reviews?" The standards remain in place, and there is an expectation that they will be met. The expectation is on the accuracy of the review, the extent to which the reviewing agency drills down and makes a recommendation that is supportable, defensible and tested over time.

We would not expect to see a product that has received a positive recommendation from any one of the agencies now doing this work to be withdrawn from the market because problems emerge. That would reflect badly on the quality of the review being undertaken.

Yes, there is an altered funding model that has funding follow the individual reviews — with which TI is still involved, but not exclusively any longer. But we wouldn't expect to see any negative change in the quality of the work that has been undertaken by any of the qualified agencies now involved.

M. Farnworth: My final comment on this before we move on would be that I do think it's important that we look at the impacts while the TI was working until the changes were made and the changes after. I think that would be a very productive exercise for the ministry. It would be keeping in line with what I think should be a priority for government — looking at the impact the changes have and comparing to before so that you can actually see whether you're achieving the goals you've set out and whether it is having the desired effect that was anticipated.

I know that a number of colleagues have questions to ask around facilities, so I'd like them to have this opportunity to be able to do that. I do know one of our colleagues wants to ask a question about air ambulance. So I just wondered: do you need additional staff for that? We can deal with it tomorrow or Thursday. That's not a problem. If we're capable of dealing with it now, that will be great.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Okay, so with that, I will cede to my colleagues probably for about another hour or so on these facilities questions.

D. Donaldson: Thanks to the minister and staff for being here today. I do have two questions, actually, that relate to air ambulance service in a general sense. It's more around discharge after air ambulance service and experiences with medical transportation.

I have two constituents who've had experiences with air ambulance. I would suspect their experiences aren't unique, being that air ambulance is very important for remote rural areas and the service to get to specialists, especially in the Lower Mainland.

[1705]

Regina Lockwood was medevacked from the Bulkley Valley District Hospital to St. Paul's on March 17. She had a heart condition and was treated on March 22. Because she was medevacked, she had no clothes, no money, no relatives in Vancouver. When she was released, she was released just on her own. When she asked about getting back home, it was suggested she take the Northern Health bus home, which takes approximately two days from Vancouver back to Smithers.

Understandably, she was a bit nervous about this long travel, and when she refused to leave until she was flown back, she finally got a response and did receive a voucher and a plane ticket back. She had the expectation that she would be returned to her home community — when she had no clothes, no money and no relatives — in the same manner that she was medevacked on the air ambulance.
[ Page 7343 ]

Another constituent has the same story. Again, he had no money and no clothes for winter travel, but he was unable to convince staff, on discharge, that he wanted to return by plane after being air-ambulanced out. He ended up on the bus in this situation.

My question is around discharge policy after a patient is air-ambulanced from a remote rural location to a central location for accessing specialist care, such as in these cases. Many times, as I said, these people don't have any money or clothes or relatives because it's been an emergency situation. Is the policy to then return them by the same transportation mode that they were transported out of their community?

[1710]

Hon. M. de Jong: I apologize for the delay. I just wanted to try and anticipate what all of the nuances and different circumstances might be. I am, as the member might expect, not entirely familiar with the specific case, but I have no doubt that this occurs with regularity. Someone comes from a great distance elsewhere in British Columbia to a medical facility in the Lower Mainland and is treated and then deemed well enough to be discharged from the hospital but confronted by having to travel a great distance to get home.

I was thinking back to an elderly family member of mine who, in the last few months, was in that circumstance, the difference being that we only had to drive 15 minutes to get home, which was okay for her. There was no way she was going to be on a bus for 16 hours.

Having tried to convey some appreciation and understanding of the challenge, I will be as blunt as I think I need to be. The policy is generally this: that people are responsible, once they have been discharged, for financing their own way home. There is a default option with the bus, but that's not always suitable for people. In rare circumstances where someone is deemed well enough to leave the hospital but not be on a bus for 12, 14 or 16 hours, alternative arrangements are made, but those are rare circumstances.

The challenge, of course, is to balance everyone's desire to be as humane and realistic about an individual's condition as possible with the ability to pay. Look, I know that the cost of flying from Smithers or Terrace or even Prince George is prohibitive, but I don't want to mislead anyone. The ministry is not in a position fiscally — nor, I expect, are the health authorities — to offer blanket assurance to people that if they are flown by air ambulance to a treatment facility in B.C., there is a return ticket waiting for them. There is just not the means available to do that.

For some people, for some families, I recognize the cost is prohibitive — probably for most families. For others, they are able to weather it more readily. There are, however, circumstances in which a decision can be made that whilst a patient is well enough to leave the hospital for medical reasons, it is inadvisable for them to be on a bus for 16 hours, and alternate arrangements need to be made.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for your answer, Minister. I will convey that policy information to my constituents. I appreciate you coming forth with it, because it's an important policy consideration for people that I represent.

The idea that specialists are…. People in the north don't expect that every community will have every specialist that they need to see. They do expect the specialists to be available, and this government has promised air ambulance service to get to those specialists and beds that are available.

[1715]

"Our experience to date has been a system that's broken down" — the words one of the constituents used with me around this policy. But thank you very much for the policy. I'll convey that, and I'll also tell the minister that I'll be providing a letter from constituents who have worked out, perhaps, other policy initiatives around costs of travel that he might be interested in.

My final question does concern, again, the Air Ambulance Service and, in particular, a region of the province that is on the cusp of major industrial development. That's Dease Lake, in the northern part of the constituency of Stikine. They have a health clinic there that's servicing the entire region and that will soon become a hive of mining activity. Therefore, not just the locals who live there now but the industry will be served by this clinic.

Right now night flights have been cancelled for air ambulance because of the non-operation of beacons at the Dease Lake Airport. Cancellation of night flights is a concern, because accidents happen any time of the day or night. It could be serious industrial accidents, and the air ambulance flights for night service are not possible.

I had one of the directors of the Dease Lake Airport Society in my office last week — as a matter of fact, six days ago — discussing this matter. I said, "Well, this will be a great opportunity to bring it up today with the minister," to ask if there would be funding available to repair the beacons so that night flights from the Air Ambulance Service can actually land in Dease Lake and service the people there in a manner that's going to be good for all and good for the industry that's going to locate there.

Hon. M. de Jong: I wonder if the member can help. I'm unclear on whether or not the beacons at Dease Lake are broken or nonexistent. He might have more up-to-date information than I have.

D. Donaldson: Well, they exist, but they're broken, and estimates are anywhere from $5,000 to $20,000 to repair. The fellow I mentioned is very good mechanically and is having a look at the beacons as we speak. They
[ Page 7344 ]
exist; they just aren't functional anymore. This presents, as I said, some problems. Well, the problem is that it prevents night landings for the Air Ambulance Service.

Hon. M. de Jong: It's one of those "I remember when" moments for me. I used to work in Dease Lake in the summertime when I went to university. In those days, in the first year the strip was gravel. It got paved the second year. I had my office at a place called the Tanzilla, but he probably knows it. Yes.

I appreciate the information. We'll try to assess…. We'll try to find out how many times air ambulances have had to be diverted away from Dease Lake because of an inability to land, try to get an assessment on what the costs for repair are and how they might be divvied up between authorities and those who rely on them.

In the interim…. I realize that it is 2½ to three hours away, but I can't remember if Watson Lake has night-landing capability. They did at one time, but the member may know more about that. I'm sure that folks in Dease Lake don't want to travel up the highway to Watson Lake.

[1720]

D. Thorne: I have some questions regarding the Riverview redevelopment project. I'm going to start out with some questions on looking at what is going to happen to the patients at Riverview when the redevelopment is finished. I'm looking at an RFP that was sent out from the Ministry of Health Services, Vancouver Coastal Health and Fraser Health on February 11, 2010. It's for 318 beds, and there are nine different centres in the province.

I'm wondering if I need to…. Would you have a copy of this RFP? Would you like…? I could name them out. I would really like to know, and people in my community especially would like to know, the status of these RFPs, because we haven't heard anything since we saw the original RFP on the website.

The first one is Weatherby Pavilion, Peace Arch Hospital in White Rock, the third floor, 24 beds. Second floor, Parkholm Lodge in Chilliwack, 20 beds. Bear Creek Lodge in Surrey, 59 beds. Detwiller Pavilion at UBC, eventually a 25-bed. Willow Pavilion in Vancouver, a project accommodating a total of 80 beds. Willow Chest at VGH, 20 beds. Kiwanis Village in Gibsons, 28 beds. Langara Residence, Providence Health Care in Vancouver, 20 beds. Youville Residence, Providence Health Care in Vancouver, two floors, 42 older adult behaviour stabilization beds.

I'm assuming that the status of these would probably not be all the same. I'm wondering if I could get that status.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll go through a list that I have. If I've missed one, the member should let me know, and we'll try to get that information. I'll go through this as best I can.

Bear Creek Lodge, I am advised, is complete. Timber Creek in Surrey is under construction. Cedar Ridge, which was formerly Parkholm Lodge in Chilliwack, is under construction and estimated to be substantially complete by the end of this month, with patients moving in later in the summer. Oceanside in White Rock is under construction, estimated completion now.

I don't know if the member asked about the Kelowna facility or not, but it is estimated to be complete this month. In North Cowichan the Cowichan Lodge is still in the design phase, as is Seven Oaks on the Island. Vancouver Willow Pavilion, still in the design phase. Willow Chest, under construction. Kiwanis Village in Gibsons, in the design phase, estimated completion June of 2012. Vancouver Providence Langara, now complete. Providence Youville, slated for completion September of this year.

I think those are the ones that the member had mentioned, but if I've missed them, she can alert me now or in the future, and I'll try to get that information for her.

[1725]

D. Thorne: I think you got them all except the UBC Hospital one — Detwiller, the adult tertiary rehab program and a 25-bed refractory mental health program to support the most complex patients. Construction was anticipated to start in spring 2010, so that probably is complete.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm advised that that project is complete.

D. Thorne: And I know that this is…. I just thought of it now, actually. It wasn't part of my original question. The three small lodges that have been built on the Riverview lands, the upper north corner — would they be part of this same program? Or are they a different program?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member is correct. I'm advised that they are part of this overall redevelopment project.

D. Thorne: Just to finish up in that area. I know — or at least I've been informed through B.C. Housing…. On page 26 in the service plan it talks about B.C. Housing working with the federal government and non-profit partners and "implementing revitalization projects across the province at approximately 100 developments in need of repair and renovation," extending the life of this. It's called, I think, the housing renovation partnership.

Now, I'm just wondering, looking at it from the opposite angle, if any of the Riverview buildings might be considered or are being considered as part of this hous-
[ Page 7345 ]
ing renovation project, or if this has nothing whatsoever to do with transitional housing or mental health or addictions services.

Hon. M. de Jong: First, they are in fact separate projects and managed separately.

I should also point out that I am receiving helpful guidance through these discussions from Ann Marr from the ministry, and I welcome her to the chamber to participate with us.

D. Thorne: I read it twice, and I thought, "No, I don't think it is part of it," but I was kind of hoping you might say yes, that in your wisdom you had isolated half a dozen or eight buildings at Riverview and that they were going to be revitalized, renovated and given a new life. I guess I can't take that news back to the community just yet. But we're going to keep working on that.

There is a small addictions treatment transitional housing program in the Brookside building at the moment. There are 44 beds, I think — 44 patients. It's part of the Burnaby program. I'm not sure if it's an overflow program, or if people kind of graduate from Burnaby and then go to Riverview. I would like to know how much time is left on the current contract and if the contract is expected to be renewed or expanded, because there's certainly lots of room there to expand that program.

[1730]

Hon. M. de Jong: The member has correctly identified the contractual relationship that exists between the Burnaby Centre for Mental Health and Addiction and the Brookside facility. I'm advised that because of the success of the Burnaby program, there was a need to identify housing for people being discharged from, particularly, the addictions side of the program.

Brookside, for the moment, is being utilized. I should tell the member, though, I'm also advised of the view that Brookside does not represent suitable long-term options for housing. So the officials at, I believe, Vancouver Coastal are working, as we speak, to try and identify a housing option for people that are discharged from the Burnaby Centre. The Brookside option exists now but will not exist past the 2012 date, so there is an urgency associated with finding an alternative for the Burnaby Centre.

D. Thorne: Well, I'm again disappointed to hear that. I'm sure the minister knows that the community of Coquitlam and the Tri-Cities and many other people are of the opinion that closing Riverview has not been the answer that we should have been seeking all along. This might be our last opportunity to salvage the buildings and keep the hospital open in some form or another — many forms, actually — for mental health and addictions purposes and transitional housing.

However, the contract obviously won't be…. I did ask how much time is left on the current contract, so I guess it would be till 2012. That seemed to be what you said.

Hon. M. de Jong: Recognizing the member's disappointment as expressed here, I fear I must tell her that whilst this will not be guided as much by the termination of a contract, notice of the pending end of referrals…. There will be a decline in the number of referrals that are made from the Burnaby Centre to Brookside to coincide with the 2012 end date to ensure that people aren't left there and then dislocated. We'll try to do that in a timely and orderly way leading up to the summer of 2012.

D. Thorne: My next couple of questions are similar. The next building I'm asking about is called Centre Lawn. At the moment there are about a hundred psychiatric patients currently housed in this building. These patients come from hospitals all across British Columbia, and they all require acute care that is not available elsewhere, and from what we can gather, or I can gather, none of these people are ready to be released, certainly not at this time.

[1735]

So my question around these patients is: are they currently being transferred, more or less one by one? If so, where are they going? If not, what does the government plan to do with these patients when they close Riverview in June 2012? Are they going to be sent, possibly, into hospitals and take up acute care beds, a problem we already have? Will it be exacerbated by these patients?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. M. de Jong: It's a timely question and important that we, hopefully, answer it to the member's satisfaction now because it won't be nearly as timely in June 2012.

The plan around the eventual closure at Riverview is very much tied to the timely completion of the types of projects that we were talking about earlier. That's why I was pleased that the member began her line of questioning by asking about those projects. The member will have heard that a goodly number of them are already completed. Some of the other ones need to be completed.

I was pleased that the member asked about UBC Detwiller. There's an example of a project to which some of the folks that the member has referred to in her question might logically be placed, assuming they're closer to where their families are or within their communities.

The two streams are inextricably tied in order to meet the target dates. With respect to Riverview, the target dates respecting the construction of new or renovated facilities must also be met so that patients have a suitable — in fact, we would say more suitable — place to go closer to their communities.
[ Page 7346 ]

D. Thorne: I thank the minister. I did notice that this was for the most complex patients. It's a 25-bed facility. There are a hundred patients in Centre Lawn right now, and that number, I understand, grows certainly weekly if not daily, with very few people being transferred. So we're going to have to have another list of RFPs go out very soon, I would think, if we're going to be able to accommodate these people in the next couple of years, because the number keeps growing.

My last question is on the Valleyview Pavilion. Right at the moment there are significantly less than a hundred patients housed there, but they're all high-risk geriatric — dementia, Alzheimer — patients who are there for assessment. The bulk of these long-term-care patients have been transferred to Delta View, which accounts for the fact that there are less than a hundred there now. My question is around the cost of these new care facilities — in particular, for these particular geriatric patients.

[1740]

I'm just wondering: how much money is being allocated to new care facilities as a result of transfers from Riverview; what percentage increase, if any, is the cost of the new care facilities as a result of transfers from Riverview; and what percentage increase, if any, is the cost of the new care facilities as to the cost at Riverview for the same service — nursing care or whatever?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm going to seek some guidance and advice, but does the member's question relate to a differential in the per-diem funding that would follow a patient from Riverview to a new facility? Is that the nature of the question — in terms of the funding element?

D. Thorne: More or less. But I guess what I'm trying to get at is: is it overall more costly? I mean, maybe this can't be answered, certainly not today, but overall, is it more costly to have a geriatric patient at Delta View than at Riverview? That's something that we would all be interested in knowing, I'm sure, on both sides of the House.

Hon. M. de Jong: Here's some information that I could relay to the member. The per diems will be the same, not just comparable. They'll be the same. And $138 million has been allocated to construct replacement homes for the patients remaining at Riverview. In excess of 400 such beds and facilities, homes, are in the process of being constructed.

There are, I'm advised, about 158 patients remaining on the Riverview site. Riverview at the moment, as the member might appreciate, is a very old facility and very, very costly in terms of overall operation. Our hope, expectation and objective is to provide the patients who will be leaving Riverview with a much better living experience than they presently have at Riverview. But the capital expenditure is significant. That is something that I want to both acknowledge and state up front for the benefit of the member.

D. Thorne: My last two questions, then, to the minister.

[1745]

I'm wondering if he can tell me what he anticipates, or what the ministry anticipates, the role of the Riverview lands and the Riverview buildings playing in mental health services after June 2012.

Hon. M. de Jong: What I can advise the member with a certain measure of certainty is…. She may already know this; in fact, I'm sure she does. Presently there will be an ongoing mental health presence on the site involving three facilities that I believe will be hosting about 65 or 66 individuals. Cottonwood, Connolly and Cypress are the names that have been assigned to those three homes, those three facilities.

Beyond that, the member knows better than most, there is much discussion and debate about what will happen with the remainder of the site. I'm certainly not in the position today to provide any definition or certainty around that just yet.

D. Thorne: Then I expect the minister probably won't be able to provide any certainty on my last question either. I'm wondering if the government is intending to leave the Riverview land as it is now, in public hands. Or are they actively anticipating that land becoming private land at some time shortly after June 2012?

Hon. M. de Jong: No, I'm not in a position to provide any specificity around future plans for the site. It is Crown land at the moment.

I'm not meaning to be in any way flippant. If the member has specific notions about an appropriate use for the site that she wishes to convey to me in this forum and take a quick moment to do so — I know she has with my predecessors — I am certainly interested and welcome the opportunity to hear her submissions on that point.

As one minister in the government, I'm not in a position to state with certainty what is to become of the Riverview lands, but I know the member has some thoughts on the appropriate use of that unique site.

C. Trevena: I'm assuming the minister is aware of the plans for the construction of two new regional hospitals for Campbell River and the Comox Valley. The business plan is being drawn up at the moment, and I would hope that the minister can give the residents of Campbell River and the Comox Valley some certainty that when the business plan has been drawn up — this has been going on for many, many years, as the minister is well aware — there will be the capital funding available for the regional hospitals to be built.

[1750]
[ Page 7347 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for raising an issue that I'm sure many in her constituency in the North Island are interested in seeing become a reality.

I can tell the member this. As she knows, the project team is in place. We anticipate later this year receiving a completed business plan. I should say this as well. The decision that has led to the proposal around the two hospitals…. I have learned very quickly in this ministry that these are big dollars, and you measure these facilities in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

As someone who comes from a community that went through a similar campaign to upgrade an antiquated old medical facility, there is the challenge around the capital and then the challenge around identifying the required operating expenditures, because we generally build facilities with increased capacity, so there are increased operating costs associated as well. All of that will have to be included within the business plan.

There will, I'm sure, on the project board, of which I think the member knows…. There is significant local representation. There will be a healthy debate and discussion around both of the facilities and what is to be included, and I hope that through the exercise and through what I'm sure will be some frustrating times, there will be an element of excitement as well about the fact that this is moving forward.

We will do what we can to move it forward as quickly as possible but, of course, I don't want to underestimate the fiscal challenges associated with identifying the literally hundreds of millions of dollars on the capital side and the operating dollars that will need to go with it.

C. Trevena: The regional hospital district has been putting aside…. It has already increased taxes to ensure that it's got the money to pay its portion for both hospitals. We have had verbal commitments from the Vancouver Island Health Authority of what will be included in both hospitals. I'm very anxious to ensure on the record that at Campbell River Hospital…. There's no scaling back of services at Campbell River Hospital, as many people are concerned about, but the cost of the hospital….

Everybody is aware of the high cost of doing two new builds, which is what we're talking about, but there is also a concern that these are public hospitals and that public dollars do go into them. We are getting public dollars through the regional hospital district and would be looking for public dollars for capital construction.

Hon. M. de Jong: In fairness to the member, I want to make sure that I have understood her submission correctly.

[1755]

No secret that this government over the last decade has shown a willingness — indeed some would say an enthusiasm — for the construction of public facilities and publicly funded health care around a 3P model. These buildings will certainly be examined from that perspective to ascertain whether or not a case….

Perhaps the member's question and submission was not meant to convey a hostility to that. Maybe that's my question to her. Maybe I slightly misunderstood the nature of the question.

C. Trevena: Absolutely no hostility to the concept of two new hospitals being built, particularly servicing the needs of both growing communities. But the hope would obviously be, from many people, that a public building be funded with public dollars, not through a 3P scenario. I'm aware of the government policy, but there is a lot of hope that these are going to be publicly funded buildings.

Hon. M. de Jong: It's certainly appropriate. She is conveying both her predisposition and that which she believes many of her constituents have.

I will only say this on the philosophical plane. The community I'm from waited for the better part of 15 or 16 years and ended up with a magnificent state-of-the-art facility that came in on time, on budget. The risk transfer was significant, revealed itself in significant ways, both during the life of construction and immediately thereafter.

I have, sadly, spent far more time at that facility than I would like to have. The measure of satisfaction is, in fairness, largely attributable to the quality of the people who work within the building. But the quality of satisfaction and, really, in fairness, the realization on the part of the people that this was the product of a partnership…. What they care about is when they get there, they pull out their CareCard and they get publicly funded health care.

Yeah, probably in the buildup to completion, there were concerns and some people fostered, I think, some suspicion. Yet none of that has manifested itself. The clinical services are as they are in any hospital facility in British Columbia. The building is maintained to the highest standards, and people, I would suggest, are very, very satisfied.

I appreciate that there is, perhaps, a philosophical question. But the determining factor, I think, needs to be, especially having regard for the fact that we're talking about two communities, two hospitals — actually, the larger community; the member knows that Cumberland has its own ideas about some of these questions — that we get the best product at the best price for the taxpayers and that, where we can, the risk associated with the design and construction of the facility be capped and transferred so that when uncertainties do occur, they are not visited upon the taxpayer.

We will, moving forward, conduct the kind of review that has taken place elsewhere. In some cases it has led
[ Page 7348 ]
to proceeding by the public-private partnership model. In other cases the decision has been a different kind of procurement strategy. But I can assure the member that that will be the approach going forward.

I have seen the results of both and can also assure the member as a close-to-18-year representative from my community that the vast majority of my constituents are absolutely thrilled with the project that emerged, the hospital that was built in Abbotsford and now serves as a regional centre in the central and eastern Fraser Valley. That was the product of a public-private partnership.

[1800]

D. Black: Would the minister be aware of the situation north of the Fraser and Fraser Health region, at Royal Columbian Hospital — the situation that arose about a month ago where patients were treated in Tim Hortons? Not only was the emergency ward full, not only were the hallways full, but patients then were taken into Tim Hortons for treatment. It created quite a stir in the media and in the community.

When I watched the coverage on that, the then Minister of Health spoke very passionately and clearly about the expansion that's planned for Surrey Hospital but never addressed the issue of the expansion at Royal Columbian. I know the minister is new to the portfolio, so I just want to let the minister know that Royal Columbian is a tertiary hospital for 1.6 million people in Fraser Health.

Royal Columbian serves from Burnaby to Boston Bar and south to the U.S. border. Actually, Royal Columbian Hospital treats one in three people in this province. It also is the hospital with the highest level of care and specialties in the Fraser Health area for trauma and emergency, for cardiac services. In fact, it's the only hospital in the Fraser Health region that provides open heart surgery, interventions, angiography.

It also does neurosciences — the only hospital in Fraser Health providing neurosurgery for brain tumours, for aneurysm repairs, for stroke patients. It also has a neonatal intensive care unit and high-risk maternity. It has had, actually, in the neonatal unit there, the best outcomes of any hospital in Canada since 1998. It's got a lot to be proud of.

All of the other 11 acute care hospitals in Fraser Health, including Surrey, must transfer their sickest patients to Royal Columbian for all of those above specialties. The expansion at Surrey will not ease the strain on Royal Columbian. Surrey Hospital doesn't offer these services, doesn't have this level of trauma care or cardiac surgery. Although Royal Columbian is situated in New Westminster, it is not simply a hospital for New Westminster. Some 85 percent of the patients at Royal Columbian come from outside New Westminster.

There are only two level 1 trauma centres in the province: VGH and RCH, Royal Columbian. Royal Columbian is the only level 1 trauma centre in Fraser Health. Also, with the way the Ambulance Service works, it means that all the new trauma patients are sent to Royal Columbian from anywhere east of Boundary Road up through the Fraser Canyon and to the U.S. border.

My question for the minister deals with the whole issue of the expansion that's been planned for Royal Columbian Hospital. I think it's close to about a year ago that a concept plan was submitted to the ministry about the expansion. The concept plan, I've been told by the people in the ministry, usually takes a couple of months for a response. This has been almost a year now. So I think the minister will understand my concern when I saw his predecessor talk only about the expansion to Surrey Hospital and not the expansion to Royal Columbian.

My understanding is that the concept plan then goes ahead to fund the business case, so we've still got a long way to go on this. The people working on this project for Royal Columbian are very excited about the kind of innovation they can bring. We've got the land assessed there now for the expansion when the brewery closed. There are a lot of positives going on at Royal Columbian.

So my question to the minister is: when can we expect a response on the concept plan? Is everything going ahead, as far as the ministry and the minister are concerned, for the very much needed expansion to Royal Columbian Hospital?

[1805]

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for raising an important issue, because she has taken some time, appropriately so, to describe the myriad of services and the important role that Royal Columbian plays in helping treat the most seriously injured and at times most seriously ill.

I will say the following. First of all, without wanting to be argumentative, I would suggest this, though. Anytime improvements are made that assist regional centres or community hospitals to treat patients in their community — whether it's Surrey, whether it's Abbotsford, whether it's any one of the hospitals that might regularly refer patients to Royal Columbian — there is an impact, and one likes to think a positive impact.

Whilst the member is correct — much of what happens at Royal Columbian is unique in terms of some of the specialty services that are provided there — when hospitals are expanded and have a greater capacity to treat some of their patients at home, that has at least some positive impact.

Now having said that, I understand that there are pressures accruing right now at Royal Columbian. I don't think anyone is prepared to deny that or would try to deny that. The area is growing. We talked earlier
[ Page 7349 ]
about the aging demographic, and the campus at Royal Columbian is going to need to be changed.

The member highlights the concept plan. A draft of that plan is with the ministry, and work is being undertaken. I'm always cautious, though, having been on the other side of these discussions, about not wanting to suggest timelines that are unrealistic. I know what I'd like to be able to say. The member would be thrilled and I'd probably feel pretty good if I stood up here and said: "Don't worry. It will all be done next month. We'll go make an announcement at the Westminster Quay and have a good time thereafter."

In fact, we're talking about a project that my guess — because we're not at that stage — is probably going to come in at over a billion dollars. It is on that scale. So when you consider that between the conversation we're having now and the conversation I just had with the member's colleague from North Island — $1.6 billion in capital construction costs alone.

I know the member feels passionately about this as someone who has represented the area both in this House and in the senior parliament for a number of years, and she will get no quarrel from me around the need for this work to be undertaken. I want to assure her that within the ministry, officials will be applying themselves with diligence.

There will, I'm sure, be a pretty healthy discussion and debate about the nature of what the redesigned campus should look like. The concept plan contains some specific proposals, and we'll need to go through that with a project team ultimately. But the costs are huge. As I say, in this case I think we're looking at a project that will….

It seems every time I visit another construction site, I'm talking about the biggest-ever capital investment in health care. Royal Columbian will, I think, eclipse all of the others in terms of what it represents — a billion-dollar-plus project.

I can't tell the member that the review will be complete by this date. I can assure her that it ranks as a priority because of the realization of the pressure that folks working at Royal Columbian are under.

[1810]

D. Black: I appreciate the minister's response, and I also appreciate that it's a costly project. But as the minister has indicated, it's very much a needed project for the people north of the Fraser for health care.

It's become the norm for hallway medicine to be in Royal Columbian — the minister knows that that is now the norm — and then to go into a coffee shop caused a great deal of concern.

The problem isn't in the emergency ward. The problem is in the wards, where they're trying to move patients out of emergency and there's no room in the wards to move them, and that's one of the key reasons that this project needs to go forward.

I take a little bit of heart. The minister is saying that they're seized with it and expect to proceed to the business case — in the near future, I take it he said.

There are other issues at Royal Columbian, of course, and one of them is that the Sherbrooke building there is an old building. It's where people who are treated for mental health issues are housed. It's a challenging building both for the patients and for the staff to work in.

I've been told that it's incredibly vulnerable to an earthquake and that if that was to happen — we know we live here in an earthquake zone — there would be a significant loss of life, a real disaster, particularly in that building. I've been told that it would probably liquefy. The building would liquefy. Much of the Sherbrooke Centre is very much below standard. It needs electrical updating.

I think that the concept plan that we talked about earlier indicated that that building should be demolished and that a purpose-built mental health building should be part of the new development.

I'm wondering if the minister is aware of the situation at the Sherbrooke Centre, if there's been any kind of earthquake or seismic report done on the building and whether the result of that might push ahead the concept plan and get us moving on the development at Royal Columbian.

Hon. M. de Jong: What I can tell the member is there is certainly awareness around the challenges faced at Sherbrooke. It's an old building and was built at a time when seismic standards were very different — or non-existent, as the member indicates. It is one of the imperatives around the need for moving forward, but as the member knows, there are additional arguments and reasons for moving forward, as well, with the work that needs to take place.

D. Black: I would encourage the minister to take a tour of the Sherbrooke Centre to experience it firsthand and see the conditions under which the patients are kept there. Staff does a terrific job under the circumstances, but boy, it really does need to be replaced.

I'm wondering about any seismic reports. Perhaps, if there are some, the minister or the ministry could get them to me at another time.

The other issue that I wanted to raise today at Royal Columbian is the issue of housekeeping and cleanliness. I have a friend who's just spent several weeks in there in Royal Columbian as a high-risk pregnancy. She was in danger of infection, and that's the reason that she was kept in hospital for three weeks. Finally delivered early, premature birth by Caesarean section, still in danger of infection.

[1815]

I have correspondence from her just decrying the state of the cleanliness of her room. She told me that
[ Page 7350 ]
she needed to continually push hospital cleaning staff to come to clean her room. At one point there'd been no one in to clean her room for a couple of days — 48 hours. This, again, is a patient who's in the hospital because of a high risk of infection and a high-risk pregnancy. In fact, she sent me a photograph of the state of her room.

I wanted to ask the minister…. The issues around privatization of cleaning services — what kinds of studies were done to think that this was a positive idea? But more importantly, now that it's in place and there are problems with it….

I have correspondence actually with me today from doctors who indicate that they are very concerned about superbugs and that whole issue as well. What kind of monitoring is ongoing now to try to bring back a standard of cleanliness in the hospital that both patients and medical staff would feel more comfortable with?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it's an important question the member asks, because to a certain extent, this represents a change in the delivery of a portion of the service.

The point I would make, first off, is that there is a tendency on the part of some people — not all people but on the part of some people — to make the observation: "I remember when it was way better." The point I would make, and I'm going to try and demonstrate, is that it's really difficult to compare because only in the last number of years has there been a more regimented audit structure in place that allows for any kind of assessment or comparison.

So here's what I'm advised happens or is supposed to happen as part of the audit system. All external independent audits utilize something called the provincial housekeeping audit system, which was created specifically for B.C. Each audit, I'm told, is conducted unannounced, and the overall score for a room is based on up to 19 inspection elements that have different weights associated with them, depending on the risk category.

[1820]

There are four different risk categories: risk 1, very high; risk 2, high risk; risk 3, moderate risk; risk 4, low risk. The scoring system puts more emphasis on inspection elements such as beds, toilets and other items that have a higher chance of hand contact points, thus increasing the spreading of infection.

Fraser Health, first of all, completes monthly audits of facilities, and the reports for those audits are placed on their website. It is possible for someone to go to the website for Fraser Health and ascertain what the audited results are. In the case of Fraser Health, the 2005 score was 86.14; 2006, 87.26; '07-08, 87.44; '08-09, 87.59; and 2010, 88.45 percent.

I think, though, having said all that, that there may well be occasions when the standard isn't being met. We actually welcome people drawing that to our attention, because we want to achieve the higher standard.

The reason I have taken a little more time in answering this part of the question is to highlight the fact that we take this seriously enough to want to have a system in place where audits are actually taking place and there is a basis upon which to assess the performance of the people doing the work. That is different than was the case ten or 20 years ago, when those kinds of standards and that kind of measurement simply didn't occur.

D. Black: I'd be happy to share with the minister the correspondence I've had from doctors and nurses there, and also from this particular patient who spent close to a month there. She had to insist and push, push, push. And my friend, who has given me this information, can be pretty pushy. If she had to push that hard to get someone in after two days to clean a room, I wonder what happens with other people who aren't as assertive. I'd be happy to share that with the minister.

My final question concerns wait-lists at Royal Columbian and what tends to happen in the summer. I've been informed by the medical staff there that there will be 200 slates cancelled this summer at RCH, that there is difficulty with the anaesthetists and that locums are not being hired this summer to replace them. Now with 200 slates, it means that potentially thousands of surgeries could be postponed, when we already have a situation, particularly in orthopedics. When people are waiting a long time for their surgery, the idea of thousands being cancelled is pretty hair-raising.

I would ask the minister if there's not some way that locums could be hired to replace the anaesthetists who are taking holidays at this time of the year. What plans does the ministry have to ensure that a lack of anaesthetists during the summer months doesn't cause more delays for people in pain waiting for their surgery?

[1825]

Hon. M. de Jong: I hope the hon. member will take some comfort from the fact that I actually appreciate her raising the issue. There is an issue, but what I probably cannot do in the time available is get into too much detail. Part of it does involve the availability of anaesthetists, anaesthesiologists. It's probably a complexity that goes somewhat beyond that, but it is very much on the radar screen. I appreciate the member's raising it.

Also, just in the 30 seconds left to me, I want to take a moment to alert people to the fact that despite this billion-dollar project that is looming around Royal Columbian, other work is taking place there. For example, the ICU got an $8 million investment just a couple of years ago for equipment; a centrifugal chiller, $1.4 million; laboratory automation equipment, almost $2 million; renovations for the medical school, $4½ million; expansion of renal services, over $5 million.

These investments are made, and it's interesting how the millions of dollars seem to roll off the tongue. Now
[ Page 7351 ]
we are talking about projects that will exceed a billion dollars. The facility is incredibly important. It is one of those hospital facilities that have relevance to every British Columbian no matter where they live, and I appreciate the fact that we've had an opportunity to discuss the matter as we have today.

I think that is my cue to suggest that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to meet again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:28 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. B. Penner moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:29 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 2:32 p.m.

On Vote 41: ministry operations, $806,922,000 (continued).

H. Bains: I would like to welcome the staff, and thank you for being here to assist us in finding some answers. I think, as I indicated before, perhaps we will go over the global budget for the ministry, and then we'll move from there.

Can the minister confirm: the numbers that the minister said — is that a net of all the recoveries? What are those external recoveries, and then how does that work?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The number I referred to at $806 million — the one I read — is net for our budget. So if we included the recoverables, we recover about $1.2 billion in external recoveries above that, so hopefully…. I wasn't sure of the question. I'm trying to get to it here.

H. Bains: Before we finish, hopefully not only will I try to understand that but people who are listening will understand what this means.

I will ask the minister. The number that you mention, $806.922 million…. Could you explain how you arrived at that number — what the external recoveries are and how that system works — so that at least if people are trying to understand what we are talking about, you could explain it to us?

[1435]

You're going through this whole document, the STOBs here, and at the end we arrive at $806 million, but it also talks about net of external recovery. So what does that mean when we talk about external recoveries? What are they, and how did you arrive at those numbers?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The way it works is the ministry will spend over $2 billion this year. So we recover parts of that. We spend it on our capital expansion program, rehab projects, provincial transit plan and so on. We will go back…. The vast majority of the external recoveries come from the transportation financing authority. That's who funds these. So once you spend the $2 billion — the ministry goes out, puts all of this money out — we get external recoveries, and I can give you a full breakdown on every piece of it. I believe $1.277 billion is what the number is. But that's how it works.

So the expenditure is made, then money comes back through external recoveries, and the major portion of that comes from the transportation financing authority. It is complex. I would be glad to read into the record each of the recoveries if you would like, but I think the member may have that information now.

H. Bains: No, I don't think we need to…. We don't have time, actually, to go through each one of those. But the transportation investment authority — perhaps you could explain how the revenue is generated in that entity and then how that money is transferred on to the ministry and different projects.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Just before I start, I know you mentioned my staff, and I apologize. I didn't introduce everybody here today. Joining me is my deputy, Grant Main, as well as Nancy Bain, my ADM of finance and management services, and Dave Duncan, who is my ADM of highways. I also have joining me Dave Stewart, who is the chief financial officer, and Dave Byng, who is my chief operating officer in the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. So thank you for that.
[ Page 7352 ]

Now, the way it works is that we spend, in all, $2 billion. It's just slightly over $2 billion.

[1440]

The money is raised. The TFA has revenue that comes from fuel tax. It has money that comes from sales of property. It also goes out and borrows money. Then when we deliver the program…. They have no staff; the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure does this work. It will be recovered through the TFA. About 95 percent of it, when you break the numbers down, is recovered through the TFA.

Their funding sources are as I laid out. Whether it be the fuel tax or the sale of properties that they have jurisdiction on or their borrowing capacity to go out and borrow that, it is then paid back — thus the net of $806 million.

H. Bains: Thank you very much, Minister. I think this would simplify it for many of those who may be watching today. I want to move on to the $806.922 million.

When I compare that from last year, it seems to me, if my math is right, it is about $54.178 million. That is the additional, I think. You could say the budget is higher than the last year by that amount.

When I look at different areas of this, highway operations is down by about $4.7 million. My question to the minister is: how is it possible that the highway operations budget has gone down this year? Is there a particular reason why that budget is down? Do we have fewer highways this year than last year, or have we shortened those highways?

When you look at all the costs going up of maintaining and enhancing our roadways, how is it possible that the highway operations budget is down almost $5 million this year compared to last year?

Interjection.

H. Bains: When you're the minister, I'll ask you that question.

The Chair: Members.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The member is correct. We have a $54 million lift, a little over 7 percent, in our budget this year, which is good news. The $4.7 million that he spoke about from highway ops — the savings are expected to be achieved through a number of ways. Increased use of technology is one. We have gone in and reduced the amount of travel that takes place, which has been significant. I think the member would recognize it as a big province and transportation as a big ministry.

As well, we have reduced the reliance on professional service contracts. We're doing more in-house as well. All of that combined is helping us save money and be more efficient so that the people on the ground…. Our road network and transportation infrastructure is not where those savings are found, but through initiatives like this.

H. Bains: Thank you, Minister. I think the minister mentioned one of the areas of savings would be to do some of the work in-house. Can the minister explain what area used to be either contracted out and now we're doing in-house, and where is the saving and how much?

[1445]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We will achieve these savings through a number of things. We will do more highway design in-house, more geotechnical design — really, engineering-related work. We're doing more of that in-house, which will lead to much of the savings that we talked about. As new staff come on with new expertise, we're able to deliver that from inside versus going to a contract service, for example. So those are some of the areas we're saving that money in.

H. Bains: It's interesting to hear the minister saying that bringing work in-house rather than contracting out is a cost saving for the government. That's very encouraging to hear from this minister. Normally, when we hear from ministers on that side, they think that going outside is a better way of doing business with the taxpayers' money. So thank you very much on that issue.

Now, the minister mentioned at the outset that there are about 1,400 staff with the ministry. Perhaps the minister could repeat: is that the FTE? Perhaps the question is: what are the total FTEs under the ministry this year, and how does that compare to last year?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: There is no change from last year to this year. It was 1,440 staff last year and 1,440 this year. It does fluctuate on occasion due to seasonal work based on, obviously, different seasons in different areas of the province.

H. Bains: When I'm looking at the STOBs here and looking at the salaries and benefits for the ministry, it shows $113.5 million this year. When I did the comparison, for the previous year it was $115.2 million. So the salary has gone down, and the minister has confirmed that the staffing level has remained at the same level as last year. So how is that achievable? If there's a saving in salaries and benefits of, I think, roughly $2 million, where does that come from?

[1450]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The number is different because it shows a reduction in the employee benefits chargeback rate, which makes the difference that you just referred to. That is a Minister of Finance issue, but the chargeback rate on that is what makes up the difference in the roughly $2 million you just talked about.
[ Page 7353 ]

H. Bains: Can the minister explain: what does that mean — the chargeback?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: What I'm referring to there is that salaries include a benefit package, and there is a calculation used. Last year they used 24.5 percent as their calculation, based on the chargeback for the benefits package. This year it is down to 23 percent. That's where the difference comes.

H. Bains: I want to move on to some specific areas because of the time constraints. I'm moving very fast, actually. There are a number of other questions that I need to ask because, I guess, this year we have a very, very short period to ask very important questions. But we can't do that because, I guess, the government decided that this is the only time that they are prepared to sit this time around. So I will try to pack in as many questions as possible in different areas.

Now I want to talk about the provincial transit plan that was announced, I believe, in 2007, if I'm not mistaken. It was a $14 billion plan. Perhaps the minister could explain: how many FTEs of dedicated staff are there that actually work on that file?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I'll just mention that joining me is Sandra Carroll, who is the assistant deputy minister of partnerships at the department and who works with us on the transit.

There are 12 full-time employees that work in this division. They do have support from other areas of the ministry, though, as well, but dedicated full-time equivalents — 12 people.

H. Bains: So what portion of this $806 million would be dedicated to that file? Maybe the minister could give us the number that is dedicated to these ministry employees: their salary, benefits and any other related costs that may be.

[1455]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Out of the $806 million budget, $3.6 million is put to this.

H. Bains: How many dedicated staff would be working on a TransLink file?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Member, you asked how many of those 12 are dedicated to the TransLink file. None are dedicated to it. Different projects come up, and different work is done, but out of those 12 FTEs, there isn't a dedicated one, two, three or six to TransLink.

H. Bains: I guess the question would be…. The 12 are dedicated to work on the provincial transit plan, which includes TransLink, which includes TransLink projects — which means the Evergreen line, the UBC line and the extension of the Expo Line, etc., as is laid out in the provincial transit plan. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Yes, that is how it works.

H. Bains: Perhaps I could draw your attention to the provincial transit plan. It was announced at a total cost of $14 billion, and then there's a breakdown. The money is actually committed from different levels of government — federal, provincial, local partners and the local communities.

Perhaps the minister could explain…. I have some numbers that are listed in the public transit plan. I will read it to you. It talked about $11.1 billion of the funding coming from: the province, which is committing $4.75 billion; the federal government, which they were calling on for $3.1 billion; TransLink for $2.75 billion; and the local governments for $500 million, along with supportive land use decisions.

My question is…. This explains $11.1 billion of the $14 billion. Where does the difference come from? Was that previously announced and already allocated towards this plan? Or where does that money come from?

[1500]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The numbers — the $14 billion. There is the Canada Line, where over $2 billion is part of that difference between the $11.1 billion and the $14 billion that you referred to. The other — there is an outstanding amount. I don't have those numbers with me. I will get those down to you and get them across as quickly as I receive them. But over $2 billion is the Canada Line.

H. Bains: I think, when I'm looking at that plan, that it does talk about $10.3 billion for four new and updated rapid transit lines serving communities across Metro Vancouver. The Canada Line is mentioned. The Evergreen line is mentioned. The UBC line and the upgraded and expanded Expo Line are part of the $10.3 billion. The way I read this, it comes out of the $11.1 billion, unless there are some mathematical corrections that need to be made.

But when you add all of the others, it does go over $11.1 billion, so there's that difference — $10.3 billion for those four lines that I mentioned, $1.2 billion for the rapid bus B.C. lines, $1.6 billion for clean technology buses. I think that is it, which comes to over $12 billion. I think it is about $13 billion — around that. But there still is a gap. It doesn't come to $14 billion. Perhaps the minister, during this discussion, if he could find out where…. How did you add it up to $14 billion?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We will get that information tabulated and get it to you as soon as we get it in our hands,
[ Page 7354 ]
as far as the difference between the $11.1 billion and the $14 billion.

H. Bains: All right. Then let's move to the provincial government portion of it — $4.75 billion. Then they talk about calling on the federal government for $3.1 billion. Can the minister tell the House how successful this government has been in securing the $3.1 billion from the federal government? Is it all committed, or is a portion of that committed? If it is, then how much?

[1505]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Sorry for taking so much time, Member. When you're dealing in the billions of dollars, sometimes the numbers are a little more difficult.

Out of the $3.1 billion from the feds, a little over $1 billion has been secured so far. The Canada Line is a portion of that, the Evergreen line at $417 million, $129 million in the Build Canada and $53 million in the stimulus.

This is a ten-year plan, as you look at it. The federal government says that we have a contribution. It will be specific to projects as well. We've had a great track record of working with our federal government in securing one-third funding, for example, on many of the projects we go out to, or additional dollars. That money is with the federal government. They have made a ten-year commitment to it. We have utilized a little over $1 billion to date.

H. Bains: Is the minister telling this House that there's no time limit requirement, that the province must start certain projects by certain dates or, otherwise, you will not be eligible for some of that money? Are there any time limit requirements placed on this $3.1 billion of the federal money?

[1510]

There was some talk about the province being under pressure from the federal government to make up your mind about what you want to do for the Evergreen line. If you don't start by a certain time, the money may not be there.

So are there any of those conditions attached to the $3.1 billion? Or is it, total, a ten-year plan and anytime you can start any project, they will cut you a cheque? Is that how it works?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: These dollars are time-sensitive. For example, the infrastructure stimulus fund received an extension to, I believe, the end of September of this year — October 1, possibly. As well, the Building Canada fund is time-sensitive on these dollars flowing, and 2017 is the date on those.

So the issue would be that there's also money that will be left on the table. They will be project specific, which will be negotiated at the time. Some projects definitely take longer — some of our smaller projects, I guess, versus something like the Evergreen line. Something in rural British Columbia certainly is time-sensitive, based on when winter comes, when our spring season comes, when road bans are lifted and if they're needing heavy equipment moved or whatever for the project.

They are time-sensitive dollars, but we negotiate that with the federal government specifically on different projects that are there. But as I said, I go back to the infrastructure stimulus find, time-sensitive to end of September this year or October 1, and the Building Canada fund — time-sensitive projects, completed by 2017.

H. Bains: For the stimulus fund, my understanding is that that fund was actually allocated much later than when this plan was announced. How does that come into the picture, when the plan was announced in 2007, but the stimulus fund didn't come into the picture until 2009-2010? How do you explain that this was already anticipated — that there was going to be a stimulus fund?

Or is that a different kind of stimulus fund than was anticipated at the time this plan was announced — that there is that money coming to pay for some of these projects, towards $14 billion?

[1515]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I will try this again. The plan is based on historical assumptions as well. We have a great track record in going to the federal government, whether it be the federal government or local governments, to get the sharing arrangements that we utilize.

When the plan was put together…. It's a 12-year plan from '08 to 2020, which I think is the document you're referring to and looking at. We actually base it on some historical assumptions — how well we've been able to achieve negotiations with the federal government and local governments, as I've said. Putting that $3.1 billion down, we've used some of that already on some programs.

As that was negotiated, obviously as we move forward, you've mentioned that some of the names have changed. There was a stimulus package…. That can change. That's through negotiations with the federal government.

Again, the $3.1 billion is based on historical contributions from provincial-federal sharing arrangements or municipal-provincial-federal sharing arrangements. The historical assumptions and our ability, I think quite successfully, over the years with the federal government lead to the number of $3.1 billion.

I'm going to count on our ability to continue with that relationship we've developed with the federal government and also count on their recognition that this money is going a long way to benefit everybody out there. Whether you're in government or opposition, I think the key issue that we're here to discuss is: how
[ Page 7355 ]
do we improve the quality of life for the people we all represent?

H. Bains: Quite a few more questions come out of the answer, but we will move on. I guess the question that comes to mind quickly is that…. In 2007-2008, when this money, the $3.1 billion, was assumed to be available from the federal government and then when the federal government announced the other funding — the stimulus package, as you call it, or some other names that are given to it….

[1520]

It means that this money was already somehow committed about a year before. So it wasn't any new money that they were talking about when they talked about a stimulus package. Or it was based on the assumption they had, compared to what the province had, that yes, the province will come to them and will give them some money on different projects. Anyway, I'll move on.

On this here, I will have some questions on some specific projects that are mentioned. For example, out of the $10.3 billion that we talked about — different projects and different lines — $3.1 billion was dedicated towards doubling the capacity on the existing Expo Line, which also includes improvements to certain stations starting in 2009 and a six-kilometre extension to the SkyTrain in Surrey by 2020.

My question is: are we on target as far as those times are concerned? Are we still on that plan — I call it the south-of-the-Fraser transit plan — as far as the $3.1 billion? If not, what are the areas that we're not considering as it was laid out in that plan? What other plans are being replaced, if some plans have been changed?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The plan continues to move forward. This is a long-range plan. You've talked about south of the Fraser particularly, and I'm sure we'll get to other projects as well. They continue to move forward. We're certainly committed. Many of the projects you're referring to were at the back end of the plan, I think, as you've noticed, on much of what's going on.

[1525]

But whether it be the Metrotown station or whether it be the Main Street station…. There are a number of things I could go into. We continue to work on those. It's our intention to continue the dialogue with TransLink as well. There's obviously that discussion that takes place to make sure that these are completed within our transit plan as put forward.

H. Bains: So $3.1 billion still is the budget for that portion of the plan?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Yes, it is, Member.

H. Bains: Are we still talking about the same plan as is laid out in the provincial transit plan? I had mentioned a few of those — extension of the SkyTrain stations to accommodate more cars per unit. I think it is to accommodate six cars now compared to what we currently have — four cars, I believe.

That work was to start in 2009. Now we're sitting here in 2011. So perhaps the minister could tell us if that work continues on. It was started in 2009. How much of that work is completed, and what will it take to complete that portion of the plan?

The second question is…. The minister might as well take it at this time. It does talk about a six kilometre extension in Surrey by 2020. Yes, that's the time that is given there. So are we still talking about extending into Guildford six kilometres, or are there any different plans being looked at now rather than sticking to the plan that was announced back then?

[1530]

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The $3.1 billion that you're referring to on this. There is work underway at different stages, whether it be engineering or preliminary work. Every intent…. All of the projects that we've talked about and that the member is referring to are planning to go ahead.

The six kilometre extension in Surrey. Obviously, there has been some preliminary work done on that. I know that Surrey has indicated a willingness to actually speak to us about the original six kilometre extension. I believe it was SkyTrain technology. I know Mayor Dianne Watts has spoken about an LRT option. Would that be better to meet the needs of Surrey? I know those discussions are ongoing right now.

The whole intent here is the ability to work together and find out which option is going to work best for the areas involved and make sure that it ties into existing infrastructure already as we have it in place today.

H. Bains: So the funding part — $3.1 billion — will continue to be there regardless of what kind of technology is being used, whether it's LRT, whether it is fast buses or an extension of SkyTrain. Is that the maximum available for those projects that we talked about? Or are you in discussion with the city to talk about the funding as well, if it's going to be more than what is allocated in this plan?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The $3.1 billion that we're talking about, engaged in this discussion, is a very high-level number. If there is technology through discussions that would alter that….

For example — again, we're into hypothetical situations here — a project is looked at. All of these projects cumulatively are the $3.1 billion that we're talking about. Something comes forward. It may be part of the
[ Page 7356 ]
six kilometre extension that sees the need for — again, speculating here, so take it in that context — additional work on a station, something else that could change that from $3.1 billion to $3.2 billion, for example. Those discussions actually are at the level when you go into discussions on the finalization.

So what contribution? We base these on a sharing contribution. As I'm sure you're aware, it takes place in most negotiations. I think the question was: "Can that $3.1 billion change?" I'm sure it could as things are discussed.

[1535]

But right now our best planning assumption…. You have to do that when you're looking out 10, 12 years, especially when we're talking about these transit systems. We have put forward a number of $3.1 billion. We would then enter into negotiations with the affected parties and go from there.

We've been very successful. We have a pretty tremendous group of people, whether we're talking about groups, rural communities out there talking with B.C. Transit, whether it's TransLink. We're presently in discussions today with them on the issues.

Again, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether it's federal, provincial or municipal. What the public looks for is: "Here are the projects. You said you were going to do it. We're looking forward to having those up and operating. Get it done, government." As you know, government encompasses all of us.

H. Bains: That's exactly the point, Minister. People basically are looking for those promises to be delivered on. We can talk about…. Well, I'm going to move into the Evergreen line. People want to have that thing continued and finished, as it was promised. But there's quite a bit of discussion, if I might say — or some disagreements — that exists as to who's going to pay, where are they going to come up with the money and when are we going to start.

In this particular case here, $3.1 billion — is that also cost-shared between federal government, provincial and TransLink? If that is the case, what is the breakdown?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We will deliver on the commitments we have made. I can assure the member of that.

You talked about the Evergreen line. There have been a number of commitments, and we continue to have those on our plate. The federal government has committed $417 million to this project. Our provincial government — we have committed $410 million to this project. We have that money ready to go. The Mayors Council committed $400 million. I know they're still in discussions as to how they plan on raising that revenue.

Really, right now this project is hinging on a decision made by the Mayors Council, as far as their funding model, to come up with their $400 million.

H. Bains: No, I asked the question about $3.1 billion, the south-of-the-Fraser project. Are they cost-shared? If that is also divided up amongst three levels of government — no, actually, the federal government, provincial government and TransLink — are there any numbers attached to that as well, as is the case in the Evergreen line?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I apologize. I thought you were dealing specifically with the Evergreen funding. I think it's important to understand that money is there, and we're ready to go with that pending a clarification from the Mayors Council.

So the $3.1 billion is anticipated that it would be cost-sharing — federal, provincial as well as TransLink, in this case, is what we're referring to.

H. Bains: A breakdown?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I will get you the breakdown. We don't have the exact breakdown here, but I will forward you that information.

H. Bains: Let me ask questions on the UBC line now. That particular project is listed at $2.8 billion to build a 12-kilometre line from Broadway station to University of British Columbia by 2020.

Can the minister, first of all, confirm that $2.8 billion still is the budget for that line? Secondly, if there's also a breakdown between federal, provincial and TransLink, what is the breakdown?

[1540]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The $2.8 billion is there in our planning. It's in very early stages. TransLink is actually in discussion looking at a number of options on this UBC line, ranging anywhere, I think, from about $1 billion to $3 billion based on technology, what would be utilized there as well. We are on the upper end of that at $2.8 billion.

That would be a negotiation that will take place, though, again, between ourselves, TransLink and the federal government for a cost-sharing arrangement that would take place on that. That has not been reached yet.

H. Bains: When does the minister expect negotiations to conclude as far as the funding part is concerned so that the three different bodies — federal, provincial and TransLink — can finalize at least that arrangement so that people will know that at least one component of this larger project is on the table and is concluded?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Obviously a very complex negotiation. There is an MOU we have signed with the Mayors Council talking about a go-forward basis, how these projects are to be funded.
[ Page 7357 ]

First and foremost, though, we're talking right now, whether it be the UBC line…. There has to be an agreement reached on the Evergreen line funding. The reality is we have federal money at the table; we have provincial money at the table. Right now we're waiting for the TransLink money. The $400 million that was promised for this project is still being worked on.

I know they're working very hard, the Mayors Council. I know they've held, I believe, five regional forums looking at options as to how they would raise that funding. We look forward to meeting with them again in the very near future.

Let's be very clear. If we can't reach agreement there, I think we're looking into the future. We first have to get the Evergreen one solved so that we can continue on with this memorandum of understanding to solve the long-range plan. It won't just be the UBC, as the member knows. There is a vast array of projects that will be needed to meet the demands of this growing population in the Lower Mainland.

I think we have an incredible transit system, and I think TransLink does an incredible job, but we have to be prepared for the growth. When you look at the numbers and projected population growth, it's going to cost a significant dollar to put in the infrastructure. That is a funding arrangement that has to be negotiated.

Presently we are still in negotiations, are waiting, really, on the Mayors Council to determine how their funding will be raised for the $400 million. As we move out to the UBC line and others, I'm hoping that we have a long-range solution negotiated with TransLink and the Mayors Council so that we're not back dealing with it in one-offs. I think that is really what is expected of us by the public.

H. Bains: I am going to move very quickly onto the MOU and Evergreen line. I want to talk about that, but I do have a few more questions on this particular line.

What are the plans for the minister and the ministry to avoid the fiasco that we had on our hands as a province at Cambie Street when the Canada Line was built? There were lawsuits. Businesses were disrupted.

[1545]

Many businesses ended up losing their businesses and moved on. Many of them never recovered from the losses that they incurred as a result of — according to many of those — broken promises. They were promised that their businesses would not be as disrupted as they ended up being — and, as we see, lengthy court cases and now appeals.

What is the minister's plan to avoid a similar situation — because we probably do have if not the same, then more businesses along the Broadway line — and is it going to be a cut-and-cover, is it going to be the same situation or tunnel, or are we looking at different technology and different routes perhaps?

I guess the question from all those businesses is: what is the ministry going to do to ensure that their businesses will not be disrupted, that traffic will not be disrupted as much as they observed on Cambie Street during that project? Perhaps the minister could explain: if there is any consultation process, has that been concluded, and how is that going to be unfolded?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Presently TransLink is leading discussions on issues such as the routing of this. It's very early in this stage. So routing, the technology used.

The question the member has asked — it's just far too early to be able to say: "Here are the mitigating factors." First of all, the routes would have to be chosen. The priority technology to be utilized would have to be chosen. And then, obviously, the discussion that you've just raised and the question would have to be dealt with: how would that be gone about with the least disruption, whether it be to the business community, residents or users of that area?

H. Bains: So what is the expected, I guess, groundbreaking time? When do you break ground as far as the construction start? I understand there are a number of things that we need to do as government before you get to that point, but there must be an expected time frame when the construction actually will start. And what would be the expected completion date?

[1550]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Right now, as I said, there are discussions ongoing for the preferred route, the preferred technology. So clearly, until that is resolved, which will be…. 2012 is the time frame, I understand, from TransLink that they plan on having the preferred route and preferred technology chosen.

But I do want to be very clear. We're talking about breaking ground, and that was the question. There are some things…. We're clearly focused on the Evergreen line right now. As I said, our money is there. The federal money is there. The Mayors Council and TransLink are determining how they are going to come up with their committed $400 million.

Once that's done, then obviously the shift will be to the broader portion, which will be, I think, encapsulated with the MOU that we signed with them looking at how the funding options happen. I mean, funding is an important part of these projects. They're very, I think, important. They need to be done, but you have to find funding options as to how you fund these.

Right now the Evergreen is funded from the provincial and federal side. As I said, we're waiting for the TransLink side to come forward with their proposed funding option. But the route, the UBC line we're talking about — I would not foresee a shovel in the ground until we get some kind of resolution to not only the
[ Page 7358 ]
route and the technology but funding availability from TransLink as well.

H. Bains: Perhaps now we can move on to the MOU that was signed back in September 2010. It commits all sides to come up with a long-term stable funding formula for TransLink to pay for many of these projects that we have talked about. Can the minister explain to me and this House…? The funding formula that is mentioned in that MOU — is that to pay for the operations side of TransLink's funding or a portion? Or are you talking about, also in that MOU, coming up with the capital funding resources for TransLink as well?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The MOU for the long-term funding with TransLink that we signed with them is for both capital and operating. Obviously, we continue…. You talked about the long-term funding. That is correct. We're hopeful that we can find a short-term solution to the Evergreen line and the $400 million that was committed by TransLink, the Mayors Council, to this.

I think the MOU you're referring to will then branch out to deal with the broader issue of all future projects. It's certainly my hope, and I think probably the hope of the Mayors Council, as well, and the people of the Lower Mainland, that the Evergreen can get in the ground, get being built and get this project up and running.

H. Bains: Now, at the time that the MOU was signed, it was made public by the then minister and the Premier at that time that they would have something worked out by the end of the year, which means by December of 2010. Then the previous minister said that she was giving them an extension up until March of 2011. Now we are sitting here — what is it now? — almost at the end of May.

Perhaps the minister could advise this House: is there another extension, or have the MOU negotiations been concluded? If not, what is going on as far as having the ministry and TransLink, the Mayors Council, sit down to come up with a long-term stable funding formula as it is mentioned in the MOU?

[1555]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The time frame that you're referring to, Member, is not for the MOU itself. It was for the Evergreen line funding. The MOU is longer-term, to find that long-range solution to all of the projects.

Again, I want to be very clear. The funding from the province at $410 million is there for the Evergreen. The funding of $417 million is there from the federal government. We have a promise from the Mayors Council and TransLink for $400 million of funding.

The challenge right now is that they've just concluded these five regional meetings. They are looking at ways that they want to raise their $400 million. I have had the opportunity to meet with the Mayors Council already. I will be back at a June meeting with them as well. My parliamentary secretary, Iain Black, has also met with them. We're very hopeful that they come up with options as to how they want to raise their funding.

They have been somewhat hamstrung — is what they say. Property tax is their only model. There are some other things. What we've said and what I've been very clear on is: let's put something together. Let's get something moving and come up with something.

I don't know what they plan on presenting. Hopefully, it will be very soon that we have some options as to how they would like to raise that. There may be changes needed in order for them to achieve that, which government will have to look at.

But we have to be clear. Our funding is there. The fed funding is there. Right now the Evergreen is waiting on the Mayors Council to make a determination on how they're raising their funding. As soon as that's done, I'm pretty optimistic we'll be able to get a shovel in the ground and get this project going.

H. Bains: But the MOU can't go on forever, as far as negotiations are concerned, because all of these projects are time-specific. We are to complete all of this on many of them by 2020 but many of them before that. It wasn't anticipated that it would take years and years of negotiations to come up with long-term, stable funding to pay for all these projects. The $400 million that the minister talks about is the capital part of the funding, and that's what they need to come up with. They may have to borrow. They may have to raise it some other way. I don't know that. I won't speculate on that.

I think most of the money listed here, it seems to me at least — and the minister can correct me — is to pay for the ongoing operation part of the funding, to pay for all the expanded projects that we have talked about. We talked about expanding the Expo Line. We talked about adding another UBC line. We talked about the Evergreen line. We talked about more buses. All of that requires an additional operating side of the finances. My understanding is that they were looking for something like $450 million per year in additional funding to pay for the operation side of all those projects.

Perhaps the minister could tell us: how are the negotiations going as far as the MOU is concerned? Who is leading the negotiations, and when are these negotiations expected to be concluded?

[1600]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The MOU has no end date. I met with the Mayors Council early on in my mandate, shortly after I was sworn in as the Minister of Transportation. I made it very clear at that time that I would like to see this resolved in the short term, not the long term.

I know that they have actually held five regional meetings — the Mayors Council. They are out talking to the
[ Page 7359 ]
people that they represent about what they would consider as far as opportunities to raise funding to fund this.

The long-range funding proposal will be for both operations and capital. As you indicated, capital is a one-time expense. There are ongoing costs based on whether it is for a rapid bus extension or, certainly less cost, an extension of a SkyTrain line, for example, which operates a little differently.

But really, right now the ball is in the Mayors Council's court. We have had some good discussions with them. I know they hosted some very good meetings. They're putting a package together, as I understand it. They will then sit down, and we will begin the discussions as to how we get from where we're at today to the long-range solution that they really are putting forward based on the discussions they've had with the public in these five regional meetings they've had.

I'm an optimist. I think we're going to find a solution. I'm not a believer that this should take years and years to do. I'm also realistic. It may not be weeks, but certainly, in the coming months I would like to think that we can have a solution for the people of the TransLink area.

H. Bains: So the minister is saying that although the memorandum was signed, there's no kind of end date by which all parties — and the provincial government is a part of that — must conclude so that there is funding available to pay for all these projects that we are talking about, both for the operation side and the capital side? So until this is completed, the TransLink portion of the funding may not be on the table. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. We had a great first meeting with them. They actually have just concluded, as I said, five regional meetings looking at options to raise funding for their projects as we go ahead. Again, I think they recognize that time is important. They have to be able to recognize how they're going to raise their portion of the funds.

[1605]

As I stand here today, the ball is really in their court. We are more than happy to be at this table, as the memorandum of understanding says, to find a solution together. We can do that, but we do need a starting point. I know that they are working on that. I expect something to be put forward by them as far as their ideas on how they would like to see the revenue raised, to raise the portion for TransLink, and we will go from there.

H. Bains: Last time I spoke to the previous minister…. The question was put to the then Premier, as well, on carbon tax revenue that is being generated today — whether that will be available to pay to help TransLink come up with their portion of the funding, as we talk about long-term, sustainable funding. At that time it was outright rejected by the Premier and the then minister.

Since that time, we have a new Premier. The Premier is saying that she's open to that discussion, to have the carbon tax revenue made available to TransLink to pay for public transit in the Lower Mainland. She's talking about, as I understand, only using a regional portion of the funding to pay for those regions.

Can the minister confirm to this House if the carbon tax portion of the funding that is being collected today is available to TransLink? If that is the position of the government, how much of that is available to TransLink?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The carbon tax. I know that the Premier has said this as well. I spoke with the Mayors Council when I was there. The existing carbon tax as we know it and as implemented is fully committed. I think the legislation makes it very clear that it goes back in tax cuts.

In the discussion that I had with the Mayors Council, it came up when we were talking. They seemed interested in pursuing all of the options available. One of them may be a regional carbon tax that they would implement. That regional carbon tax would be directed towards transit services or transportation infrastructure.

Is that on the table? I think that will probably be one of many topics of discussion that they bring forward as well. Would I entertain that discussion? Yes, I would.

H. Bains: Which carbon tax is the Premier talking about, then? Is the minister clear? Is this a portion of what the Mayors Council and TransLink were asking previously — that a portion of the carbon tax goes to pay for a part of the TransLink expenditure? What is the Premier talking about when she talks about the carbon tax being made available to TransLink?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I would reiterate what I've said. The existing carbon tax, by law, under legislation, goes to tax reductions. So if that was to carry forward…. I'm just going to try and read into the question. If a portion of that — if it's what the member is saying — was to be used, then I guess they would have to give up tax breaks in the area that that was collected from.

I don't think that was the intent. I think that there has been an understanding and, certainly, I believe that the opposition has even spoken in favour of using a carbon tax levy to fund transportation. I guess you never want to assume.

[1610]

What I'm talking about, and I made it very clear with the Mayors Council, is that if it was a regional carbon tax levy — this would be on top of the existing one — and if the TransLink area and the Mayors Council felt that was appropriate, then that would be one of the many tools that they're going to bring to the table to discuss how
[ Page 7360 ]
they're going to raise their form of funding, not only for the Evergreen but long range.

If there was the existing carbon tax as we know it and as the legislation reads — that for every dollar brought in, a tax cut will be on the other end of that — there isn't a legal mechanism for a portion of that to be utilized.

H. Bains: Has the Premier spoken to the minister about how we can make or how the government is prepared to make carbon tax available to TransLink? I can read it to the minister. According to the 2011-12 budget fiscal plan, and in 2012-13, carbon tax revenue will be $1.1 billion, and tax cuts are estimated at $1.49 billion. Therefore, it exceeds, actually, by about $328 million, the money that comes in from the carbon tax compared to the tax cuts that have been dedicated.

Has the Premier not spoken to the minister about what carbon tax she is talking about and how that is made possible? Is she prepared to bring legislation to remove those tax cuts, as the minister has said earlier, to make that carbon tax money available to TransLink?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: As the member rightfully points out, at $1.1 billion, all of the carbon tax money that's brought in isn't enough to cover all of the tax cuts. I speak to many people, as I'm sure the member across does, and I don't get a whole lot of people saying: "Raise my personal income tax." So we actually will continue with that.

The funding that we're talking about — I have spoken with the Premier and reiterated my discussion with the Mayors Council that if one of the tools they bring to the table is the thought that they would like to initiate a regional carbon tax in the TransLink area and that that funding would go to directly pay for the capital and operations of the TransLink operations and the new projects coming, is that something that I would entertain discussing with them? Most definitely I would.

H. Bains: Just so that we are clear that we are talking about the same carbon tax. What the minister is suggesting and what the Premier has said, that the carbon tax she talked about would be in addition to the current carbon tax that we're talking about — if that is to be on the table, then that money could go to TransLink. But we're not talking about the existing carbon tax as the numbers that we talked about from which those numbers come. So it will be additional charges, as far as the carbon tax is concerned.

There would be a new carbon tax, if that is the route to go and if that is to be brought to the table. Then, is that what the Premier is saying, and the minister is agreeing — that the government will make the new carbon tax, I would call it, available to pay for transit projects?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I will try again to be as clear as I possibly can. The carbon tax that we are talking about — referring to if TransLink could use that as a form of funding for new projects in the future — would be a new regional carbon tax on top. That was what I reiterated in my discussions with the Mayors Council. In discussions I've had with the Premier, I reiterated what I said at the Mayors Council on a regional carbon tax.

[1615]

The other side of that, though, is — and I want to be very clear — although the carbon tax today as it exists raises $1.1 billion, in the legislation, that is fully committed to tax reductions. So the discussion we had was a regional carbon tax, new money raised and, again, not imposed by the government. This would be a decision of the Mayors Council, if that is one. Again, we're speculating. I'm not sure what package of fundraising opportunities they are going to bring to us for discussion, but that could very well be one of them.

H. Bains: Now we are clear that the carbon tax that the Premier was talking about was a new carbon tax, not the carbon tax that exists today.

Has the minister contemplated, or the Premier communicated to the minister, whether they are prepared to bring in new legislation to take these tax cuts in order to make that available to TransLink at all?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No, there has been no indication that the existing carbon tax would be adjusted in legislation presented to alter the expenditures of the revenue generated today from that existing carbon tax.

H. Bains: So that we are clear on our side, the carbon tax money being made available to TransLink projects was the existing carbon tax we were talking about. We were talking about forgoing future income tax and corporate tax cuts that were being contemplated in that. The mayors, it is my understanding, were also talking that it was the existing carbon tax that they were after — that that money should be made available to pay for TransLink, not the new one. I just wanted to make sure that that's what we were talking about.

Let's go to the Evergreen line. The minister has made many references that the provincial portion is $410 million, that the federal is $417 million and that TransLink is expected to come up with the $400 million. That still leaves a gap of $173 million on a project that is $1.4 billion.

My question, first of all, is: is the expected budget still $1.4 billion? The second question is: where is that gap of $173 million going to come from? That is not committed by anybody.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I just want to go back to a comment. I know we closed off on the carbon tax. You indicated that it was your position from the New Democrats that you were talking about existing carbon tax, as I understand what you've said, and the Mayors Council as well.

[1620]
[ Page 7361 ]

I don't think I could have been clearer with the Mayors Council when I used regional carbon tax, a new one. If that is unclear, I will reaffirm what I said to them at my next meeting.

The other side of that, whether it would be the Mayors Council or the opposition, is that if you use a portion of that, the reality is you're taking it from somewhere else. If you're taking it from those tax cuts, is there a group of people that would like to be in an area that will say: "We'll raise our taxes here to offset…"? I don't think that would be the case.

The gap. We are right now working towards this funding, as I said. We have our funding in place and the federal government. I know that we had a commitment and a promise from the Mayors Council, TransLink, for $400 million.

The question is not: are they willing to give $400 million? They've made that commitment. The issue for them is: how do we raise it? How do we find an effective way to represent our constituents and raise funding in the proper manner?

The savings, the $173 million gap, right now could potentially be from the design-and-construction efficiencies. We expect there could be money there. There also could be the transit-orientated land development opportunities — very significant along the rapid transit lines like this.

Clearly, we are focused on the commitment right now of working with TransLink and the Mayors Council to secure the $400 million promise that they've put forward. Then we will move forward on this project.

H. Bains: I think that, year after year, when I ask this question, I get the same answer. It is: "It may be this; it may be that."

It's not just pocket change, $173 million. If you don't have — or the ministry or the minister do not have — a clear direction as to where that money is going to come from…. They're still speculating. Maybe we could make some savings in design. Maybe we could make some savings somewhere else. But no one has actually said, "Yes, we have started looking at it, and here we are going to save the money" — and how much of that money comes from each of those areas that you have looked at.

The general public out there, who are waiting and waiting to have the Evergreen line going, are worried that a $173 million gap still exists, because there are no clear answers. Where is that money going to come from?

Then minister after minister continues to say that the budget still continues to be $1.4 billion. They haven't said that the budget is lower by $173 million. I don't expect it to be lower unless there are drastic changes in the scope of the project, some stations being cut.

I mean, unless the minister can make it clear where that $173 million is going to come from, it is a huge concern to the community out there. This is on top of the $400 million that still isn't on the table. Perhaps the minister could clarify that. Where is that money going to come from that we talked about — the $173 million?

The second question. The minister gave TransLink until April to come up with $400 million — or their portion. We're sitting here at the end of May. How is that discussion going? What is happening so that the people who are waiting for this line to start construction and to be started on time, as was promised…? What is happening in that area?

[1625]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I go back to the discussions. You had a couple of questions there. How are the discussions going? I think quite favourably, but really, the ball is in TransLink's court, in the Mayors Council's court.

As I said, the federal government money is there, secured on the table. The provincial money is there, secured on the table. We have a funding commitment of $400 million from TransLink and the Mayors Council. The discussion that they are having right now…. There have been extensions to accommodate their ability to go and engage the public. Once they come up with their funding of $400 million and how they want to raise that, I can assure not only you but the public that this project will proceed.

H. Bains: So while this continues on…. This is a year after I asked the question last year, and almost the same answer was given. Nothing has happened since that time, other than maybe more discussions someplace.

I think the question would be, then…. The minister the last time said that the ministry is the lead on this project. If that is the case, how is the construction starting and are you able to complete by the anticipated completion date that was given previously? You are going to start construction, as I was advised by the minister previously, and in the meantime, TransLink is looking for money.

Are you confident that that money will be there? Are you confident that this project will be finished at the time that was promised?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The time frame will be affected as a result of the delay. Again, I want to point out for the general public that are viewing us — and I know they're all tied to their televisions on a sunny afternoon like we have today — that the holdup is not with the federal government funding. It is not with the provincial government funding.

Right now the holdup is with TransLink and the Mayors Council funding. They made a commitment of $400 million. They have always said they are going to live up to that commitment. My latest discussion was that. What they don't have figured out yet is how they're going to raise their $400 million. Once they've concluded…. Those are the discussions that are ongoing right now.
[ Page 7362 ]

I know the member, and I think he's an optimistic fellow, as I know I am. I think we're going to find that solution. When I say "we," really, the ball today is in the Mayors Council court. I'm looking forward to what they come up with as a result of the discussions they've just had. We're going to move forward. As soon as we have that, as I said, we will begin this project.

I don't think we will meet the December 2014 completion date, as was originally intended, strictly because the reality is that it has been held up on the other end of this.

H. Bains: So can the minister advise: what is the anticipated completion date now?

The second question to the minister is…. As I recall, when TransLink and the Mayors Council put together different funding options available to move forward, they talked about three different options at that time. There was a base plan, there was a plan that would give them additional funding to move forward and add some services, and there was one that was a very, very comprehensive plan that required about $450 million.

[1630]

[M. MacDiarmid in the chair.]

At that time it was determined that TransLink's capacity under the legislation that exists today…. The maximum they could raise through those resources was about $270 million a year, and because the more expensive plan required $450 million, that was not considered to be legal even to consider.

The other plan was $270 million, the maximum that they could raise. But they chose to go with the base plan, which was $130 million from the existing resources that they have available to them. At that time they were looking for a new legislative authority to raise more money.

So have they come to you? Have you anticipated, as a minister, talking about and giving them new resources for funding so that they can actually raise that money? Right now it seems to me that they don't even have the capacity to raise money, unless they're given additional legislative resources.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The completion date is dependent on when we reach agreement on the funding, and really, there are two stages to it. We've spoken about the Evergreen funding package as well as the long-range funding package for the broader one.

Although we are right now, after the work they've done, awaiting the work of the Mayors Council and TransLink to put something forward to us, to say, "Here's how we think we could raise the money…." It may take legislative change. I don't want to predetermine what they're going to put forward. It may very well.

As you've indicated, they do have room right now to raise funding, as I think you're aware, through property taxation. They have been adamant that they do not want to use property taxation as a form of funding for this, but they do have that authority — I want to be very clear on that — which would take no legislative change.

They have expressed very clearly that that is not a preferred option for them. That is why they've gone out and engaged the public in these discussions and why they're putting together a package that I anticipate will be coming to us fairly shortly, hopefully.

H. Bains: All the different sources of funding that TransLink has available, whether it is a fare increase or the gas tax or the parking stall taxes and a number of others…. The property tax is another one. I understand that the mayors have rejected that option of raising more money from property taxes. I know at least one time they have unanimously said no to it.

[1635]

Can the minister explain to this House: how much can they actually raise? Can they raise as much as they want out of property tax, or is there a limit? With all the other options that I mentioned there's a limit to how much they can go. Is there a limit on property tax, and how much can they go to raise through the property taxes?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: There is no cap. There is a cap on the other ones — the fuel tax, for example; I believe they're at the maximum end of that. With property tax, there is no cap, so they can raise the funds they want. They have made it clear that they're concerned that their property tax is at the top end in their mind right now as to what they would like to raise. But the question was: is there a cap as to the amount they can raise? No, there is no cap.

H. Bains: I would like to ask some questions on the Port Mann/Highway 1 expansion. Can the minister advise this House if the total budget is still the same? Perhaps the minister could, for the record of this House, advise: what is the final budget of that project?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The Port Mann/Highway 1 project is $2.46 billion, and today it is on time and on budget. It is a fixed-price contract.

H. Bains: Then on top of that, there are operation, maintenance and financing costs, to my understanding, of $840 million, for a total cost of $3.3 billion. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Yes, that is correct.

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister could advise the House if the open date of the end of 2012 is still the date and if the entire bridge will be open before the end of 2012.

[1640]
[ Page 7363 ]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: December of 2012 is the projected opening of the bridge. It will open. It is a ten-lane bridge. It will open with eight lanes. The remaining two have to be completed after the old bridge is decommissioned and taken down. That's where the location of those two remaining lanes is. That would be into the 2013 range for those.

H. Bains: So the bridge that we are seeing being built right now as we drive by is the eight-lane, and the additional two will be added on. Is that what the minister has advised?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: First, maybe I was a little remiss. I do have a new member of my staff joining us. We have the CEO of the Transportation Investment Corporation, Mr. Mike Proudfoot. I just want to point that out.

What you're seeing is the development of the full ten lanes now. It will be the extremity on the south end that will not have the full ten-lane capacity at opening. That is the part that has to be finished after the old bridge is decommissioned. So the extremity on the south end approach is the part that will only have eight lanes. The other two lanes will be added once the bridge comes down. There has to be piling work and so on. That is my understanding.

H. Bains: What is the completion date for those two additional lanes?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: At the end of 2013.

H. Bains: I will ask this question again to this minister. I did ask this before. I never got a satisfactory answer. The original plan was to twin the existing bridge, and then it was decided to tear down the existing bridge and build a brand-new ten-lane bridge.

My question to the minister is this: how is it that building two bridges is the same cost or cheaper than building only one bridge? If you're twinning, you're building only one bridge of five lanes. Now you're building a mega-bridge of ten lanes — you know, basically two five-lane bridges. How is it possible that we could provide two brand-new bridges and also take in the cost of tearing down the old bridge at the same cost or lower?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Member, you mentioned building two new bridges. I think we're talking about one, the Port Mann bridge, here — one ten-lane bridge. Just so that I'm clear on that.

How can it be cheaper? Actually, the cost with the old one to increase that — the operation, the maintenance and the seismic upgrades over the life cycle of the new bridge versus the upgrade to the old bridge…. It is far more economical to build the new bridge. The seismic upgrades, particularly, to that old bridge were extremely expensive.

The operation and maintenance — when you're dealing with an old structure versus a new, you obviously do your cost-benefit analysis. Is it better? It's no different than you or I upgrading a home. Eventually you reach a point: do you build a new home, or can you continue to invest money in an old one? That work was done, and it is in the best interest of the people of British Columbia to build this new ten-lane bridge.

[1645]

H. Bains: The problem with that answer, Minister, is that this bridge is about 40 years old. It still has about 40 years' life to it — at least, as we were told. If we are starting to tear down bridges after about 40 years or half the age of our existing infrastructure of bridges, I think we are embarking on a financial undertaking that we may not be able to afford.

I know that was the official line given. I think it is a bit of a spin-doctoring to me. No cost analysis was done; no numbers were presented to anybody. What will be the cost of keeping the existing bridge, doing all that maintenance and upgrading and building only a five-lane additional bridge to twin the old one, rather than going towards tearing this one down when it still has half its age left and building two five-lanes rather than just one five-lane and still convincing the public it is at the same cost or cheaper?

I think it is not believable, Minister. I'm not suggesting that these are your answers and that people don't believe you, but as a government, when those types of answers come, that's how people lose faith in governments and say: how is that possible?

Anyway, let me go on to talk about some of the other issues surrounding the bridge. Currently, what is the usage as far as the number of vehicles is concerned on the Port Mann Bridge today? And what are the anticipated numbers when it is completed?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Today traffic volumes range between 125,000 and 140,000 movements across that bridge daily. They are expected to increase by 40 percent by the year 2021. So obviously, building infrastructure for the future.

I do want to go back to the other question you raised. It really is about life cycle. How is it more economical to do this? It's $180 million more to build the new bridge than it was to refurbish and put five lanes on the old one. Over the life cycle of this new bridge, from what we would have had with the existing bridge with an additional five lanes, there will be a savings of roughly $200 million, so a net benefit of that much to the taxpayer.

Hopefully, Member, that answers your question to your satisfaction.

[1650]

H. Bains: I don't think it is going to satisfy many people out there who I have spoken to since the answer
[ Page 7364 ]
that was given to me last time. Last time, I was told that they put the proposals to these construction companies. They came back, and they said: "Well, you want a crossing, and we'll give you a crossing. It's a ten-lane, and it is going to be better and cheaper." So they basically took their word for it. That perhaps is the different answers all the time. But anyway, I'll move on.

So a 40 percent increase. The number — Minister, perhaps you could confirm or correct me — that we're currently looking at is 140,000 vehicles in 2011 and moving up to, with the 40 percent, if the calculation is correct, about 190,000 by 2021?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The projection is that it would be about 196,000 movements. That's a projection based on what the expected growth rate is, obviously, when we see the influx of people coming to British Columbia with the growth cycle that we're seeing.

But I do want to go back. I can't let this one go. We talked about life cycle. Although you may or may not like the answer, the reality is that if you actually have a cost saving for taxpayers, I'd be interested….

I don't get taxpayers banging on my door, whether I'm in Dawson Creek or down here, saying: "Spend more money. Even if it means that I have to pay more over the life cycle, spend more." They always say to me: "Get the best value you can with our tax dollars. We have a great province. We have great services. We can always get better, but get the best deal you can." That's what we've done in this case.

H. Bains: Let's move on. I do not agree with the minister that the taxpayers are getting the best value for their dollars, the way that the minister has gone, but anyway, I'll move on to the tolling part of it.

When it was announced, it was announced that the tolls would be around $3 for cars. Then when I looked at the concession agreement that was signed between the parties, the agreement does talk about $2.85, but if you do not pay within 48 hours or you do not have a transponder, the rate goes up to about $5.15.

In comparison, with the Golden Ears Bridge you are given time. You cross the bridge, and you get a bill at home. I believe it is two weeks time, or around that time, that you have to pay. Now you know how much you're paying and how to pay.

But if you are crossing once or twice to go and see your grandchildren or your parents, and you have no transponder, now you're expected to pay $5.15 because you didn't pay within 48 hours.

I asked this question to the minister previously: is that fair? I believe the minister's answer at a different forum was that may not be fair, and those numbers may not be correct, as I recall the minister saying. But I've got the chart here. That's exactly what they talk about. So $2.85, and if you don't pay within 48 hours and you don't have a transponder, it goes to $5.15. Is that still the tolling arrangement, or has the minister changed those numbers?

[1655]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: In today's dollars it's a $3 tolling. That was how it was worded and based on that.

The issue is, and I want to be very clear, that I think at the Golden Ears you pay more if you don't have a transponder. There is not any intent on the Port Mann. You do not need a transponder. You will have every opportunity to pay the $3 toll. You can pay it, certainly, at the booths on the far side, if you wanted to pull in. There is no booth on the bridge itself, so you stop and pay a toll. There will be other options for paying that. That's a very important fact.

The transponders will be supplied free of charge as well. I certainly think that it will be used well by the people that live in the region, certainly not so much for somebody from Dawson Creek, for instance, who passes through. I think it's fair to say that the TI Corp has heard very clearly that the two-day time frame that was discussed….

If you didn't pay within the two days, then I think it would go up to the $5.30, and I'm going by memory. That was to recover costs if you had to send out bills, and so on. They heard clearly, as well, that — you know what? — two days may not be the reasonable time frame. I know that is under consideration right now.

I would share that. I mean, you're on a trip from, and I'll use my hometown, Dawson Creek. I cross the bridge. I'm home four days later. Is it reasonable to expect that I now pay? I can't determine where they're going to land on this, but I know that they've heard the public's concerns, talking about two days, and I think that an option is being considered right now to change that.

The Chair: We'll take a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:58 p.m. to 5:05 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

H. Bains: Going back to those tolls, perhaps the minister could go on record: is there any discussion going on from the minister's office to make sure that there is some fairness built into that agreement so that you're given enough time to pay, once you cross that bridge, if you don't have a transponder? If the minister could explain in what direction those discussions are going.

What does the minister think needs to be done in order to bring some fairness back into that system so that people are not, as many say, gouged? If you don't pay within 48 hours, it goes up by $2.30. This is not something that you see anywhere else — that you use the service and if within 48 hours you don't pay, you are paying almost double. I think that's the question.
[ Page 7365 ]

The public, at least, was not made aware that that kind of arrangement would come and hit them. All they knew was $2.85 or $3 per crossing with cars. Then we realized that the agreement actually says something different, which is $5.15 if you don't have a transponder and if you don't pay within 48 hours.

Can the minister comment as to what direction the minister is having in discussion with the related groups so that some fairness is built into that agreement?

[1710]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The tolling principle with the TI Corp is clearly based on fairness, convenience and superior customer service.

I've actually had the opportunity to speak with TI Corp — certainly, I'm not directing them in any way — talking about those principles and recognizing that as they re-engage the public right now, I know they have heard what we're talking about here: is it fair, under the fairness test, to have two days? I think they're hearing that. I don't know where they're going to land on that, but that is part of what they're doing, speaking to the public about that.

I do want to point out that everybody has the opportunity to receive the lowest rate to start. That's one of the key issues. There are going to be HOV discounts. There are going to be overnight usage discounts on this. There are exemptions. Persons with disabilities are exempt from the toll, for example.

All of that fits in with the tolling principle of the TI Corp, which is fairness, convenience and superior customer service.

I think the member can be assured that as we're discussing this today, we're reflecting the direction where we're headed in the future, which is to make sure that the tolling system is fair to all that use it.

H. Bains: Thank you, Minister, for taking this concern seriously. I think people who will be using Port Mann will appreciate having some fairness built into that.

TI Corp isn't any foreign company. It is the government here. I am sure the minister has the ability to change their minds and build some fairness.

Now, the minister said that everyone has the ability to get the lowest rate with a transponder. I guess that's what the minister is talking about. But having a transponder…. My understanding, unless the minister can correct me, is that in the same agreement I talked about, where the tolls are mentioned, there's a cost for a transponder. Also, there's a monthly fee attached to it — to have your file basically, I guess, managed. There's a cost available there as well — upfront and monthly costs.

It is not just $2.85 or $3. There are additional costs already built into that agreement — unless the minister is saying, as I heard earlier the minister saying, that the transponder is free. If that is the case, perhaps the minister could make that commitment here and then go on record that the transponder is free and there's no processing fee each month for those who carry transponders.

Perhaps the minister could comment on those two.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This is a very good question and one that I think the public will be very interested in.

There is no fee for the transponder whatsoever. The technology is very small, a very small piece. I think some of the older transponders and the older technology were certainly larger in size. These are quite small. There is no monthly fee for the administration of this.

[1715]

As well, what we will have is the ability for people to pay if they don't have a transponder. Maybe it was myself coming through. I travel there once in a while when I come from up north. I can pay by phone. I can pay on line.

For people who maybe don't use a transponder or think they will need that, they can actually prepay. They can register their licence plate as well. So a number of, I think, very good options, but the key issue here: transponders are free, and there is no monthly fee for the people that utilize this service.

H. Bains: Thank you for that clarification from the minister. Let me talk to you about when originally the Port Mann twinning was announced and the tolling was announced, that this bridge will be a toll bridge. The minister said the government policy was that the only place they apply tolls on bridges or roads is where the public has a free alternative.

At that time when the minister was asked, "Where is the free alternative?" the minister used the Pattullo Bridge as a free alternative. Since that time, the minister probably already knows, TransLink has already announced, and had originally said, that there would be a new bridge but that it would be a toll bridge. When this issue came up, what happened to the free alternative promise that the government made?

Then they started to go back and forth. Perhaps we will refurbish the bridge. Perhaps there will be no toll on the Pattullo. Now they just came back again that there will be a new bridge — that's the option they're looking at — and they still don't know how to pay for it.

The assumption is that it will be a toll bridge. If it is a toll bridge, I would like the minister to explain to the public what happened to that promise that the Pattullo would be the free alternative — although at that time, if you leave the Pattullo Bridge as it is, it is not, by any practical means, a free alternative, because it's an old, dilapidated, very dangerous bridge. As it is, when you see more traffic coming to avoid paying tolls, it will be chaos, and everyone understands that. Now they're talking that that would be a toll bridge.

Where is the government's promise to have a free alternative to the Port Mann toll bridge? People are concerned that if Pattullo is tolled, Port Mann is tolled and
[ Page 7366 ]
Golden Ears is tolled, you can't get out of Surrey or south of the Fraser without paying any toll, unless you want to drive to the tunnel and come back, or drive to the Alex Fraser and come back. That is not a free alternative by any practical means. Financially speaking, it adds cost to you driving six or seven kilometres and back through very different municipalities and adding to our carbon footprints. It's not practical.

Anyway, I would like to ask the minister: is the minister still keeping the promise that was given to folks that there will be a free alternative? If that is the promise, where is the free alternative?

[1720]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I'm going to just take a moment. We're talking about the Port Mann bridge and the significance of it. This bridge, obviously, will save significant amounts of time for the travelling public. I don't live down in the Lower Mainland, but I have travelled there. I can only imagine not only how frustrated I was in the traffic that I had to experience but experiencing that on a day-to-day basis. So I would have to anticipate that people are looking forward to this.

Transit buses for the first time in 20 years will now be able to travel over that bridge, the new bridge, the Port Mann — I think, again, something very positive. HOV lanes now extended all the way to Langley. So some very positive things as a result of this work — the Port Mann and Highway 1.

There was discussion, as the member has said, that the Pattullo would be the free alternative. Right now I know that TransLink has said that they feel the bridge has to be replaced. I know they've also said that tolling is their last option. They don't want to look at tolling if they don't have to. I don't want to speculate as to what will happen. If TransLink makes a determination in the future that they're building a new bridge and they determine that tolling is their option, we would have to, I guess, sit down and discuss that at the time. I mean, if there was a commitment made that that would be the free alternative, it would have to be a discussion point.

Again, I don't want to predetermine. We could sit here and speculate back and forth, I think, for some time if it's a tolled bridge or if it isn't. I think what we'll do is, if it becomes a reality that they, TransLink, are going to build this new bridge, the Pattullo, and then they determine that they're going to use a tolling option, we will obviously have to readdress the commitment that you're referring to.

H. Bains: Thanks to the minister. I think the argument that you made for the new bridge…. I think those arguments were made at that time — talked about HOV lanes, talked about reducing the time, talked about all of those arguments that the minister has given. I get that, but I think that the promise was that there would be a free alternative. That's the government policy. It was repeated time and time again.

I just want to make sure that the government, or at least this minister, is keeping up with the promise that there will be a free alternative to Port Mann, and it isn't the Alex Fraser or the tunnel, as sometimes some other minister may have mentioned, or South Fraser perimeter road that they thought would be the free alternative.

Obviously, with all due respect to those ministers, they may have not driven in that area or not have known the geography of that particular area — how South Fraser perimeter road and Alex Fraser are totally impractical, especially when you're talking about people living in Guildford area and crossing over to go to Coquitlam on a daily basis for, perhaps, work, business. They cannot be expected to go and drive five, six or seven kilometres each way and come back through different municipalities and say: "Well, there's the free alternative."

I think I'd just like to have the minister go on record and explain to the public that the promise was made, and it will be kept. Perhaps if the minister has some options on how that promise will be kept, can the minister share those with us?

[1725]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The member, in referring to this, has talked about the tolling versus a free alternative. That commitment is there. The Pattullo is what you are referring to, and I go back to this. I can't speculate on whether that would or wouldn't be a tolled bridge if TransLink puts a new bridge across there.

There are a number of factors that will come into play here. We're working with them on long-range funding arrangements. We just talked on that earlier. We canvassed that issue. There was a commitment, and we have a tolling arrangement that there would be alternate routes. I know that the Pattullo has been spoken about, but again, I can't speculate.

If a commitment was there, there's no indication that we wouldn't live up to our commitment. If it's a free alternative to what's taking place, and that's the question, then that stands today. If the Pattullo is rebuilt and tolled, we would have to enter the discussion at that point to find out. Again, we're speculating a lot here. It may or may not be a rebuild. I know they would like to go to a new bridge. How the funding would come about to pay for that — it may very well be resolved in the discussions that we have under the long-range funding MOU that we're talking about.

H. Bains: I'm looking at the clock. Rather than going back to that…. It is important to folks who use those bridges to talk more and get some more information, but there are some other issues on the table that we need to talk about.

I want to move on to the South Fraser perimeter road. Can the minister explain to this House how it is
[ Page 7367 ]
that in the ministry's 2009-10 service plan the cost estimated was $1 billion, that in last year's estimates debate the minister of the time confirmed the cost was $1.145 billion, but that in the 2011-12 service plan the cost is stated at approximately $1.264 billion? Can the minister confirm that that is the final cost? Has there been any fixed-price contract signed, as I understand was promised?

[1730]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: To the member: in the numbers you refer to, I think you said '09-10 was $1 billion. The public number I'm aware of is $1.145 billion, so maybe there's something I'm missing there. That was the original public number, and it is now $1.264 billion.

You asked where the difference is. That's a $119 million difference, and $37 million has gone into environmental and agricultural improvements as a result. There is $42 million that has gone towards interest during construction, which is part of the funding, and $40 million is for additional capital improvements that make for a cheaper life-cycle cost of this.

[1735]

For instance, they're putting thicker asphalt on, on the front end, which improves the life cycle of this project. That's the difference. The difference between the $1.145 billion and $1.264 billion is the expenditures that I've just laid out.

H. Bains: It's the ministry's service plan of 2009-10. It talks about $1 billion, and then last year the minister said it was $1.145 billion.

Minister, some of the costs that you have mentioned, the environment evaluation and others…. You would think that all of those would be included in that budget, because that isn't an afterthought. That is part of that project; that was part of that project. The fact is that the cost has gone up. So I think it is clear that the cost has gone from $1 billion to $1.264 billion.

The next question is — I did ask the question, but the minister didn't answer: has the contract been signed? Is it a fixed-price contract? And my other question because there's a lineup of other MLAs who want to ask some questions. Looking at the clock, perhaps the minister can answer all of those questions at the same time.

My next question is: what percentage of this project is completed? How much of that budget has been expended so far percentage-wise from $1.264 billion, and what is the expected date of completion? I said a few questions.

[1740]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I will try and cover the questions the member raised. I'll do them in reverse order.

What percentage of the project is complete? It's 30 percent that is complete to date. What percentage of spend have we expended? It's 50 percent. Obviously, the difference on that is the land expense on the front end, a significant difference, so it doesn't match up. The '09-10 — I did have a quick look at what you're referring to. It's very clearly an estimate. It says in there: "The estimate of $1 billion." Things have changed.

The other ones you said: why weren't they in there? The $37 million for environmental and ag is actually additional improvements, as the project was under construction. There was work with the ag community as well, so that's an addition to what was first put out in the $1.145 billion. I know the farmers are grateful for that.

The $42 million interest during construction is not in the original one. It isn't covered that way in the projects. It is once the construction begins. That cost is then added.

There is $666 million of a fixed-price contract that is there. The rest is work that the ministry has done at the front end — the preloading and all of that.

Hopefully I have done you a service in answering those questions. The key one, what percent of the job is complete, is 30 percent, and 50 percent of the spend.

Interjection.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Completion on the eastern portion is December 2012. Completion on the western portion is December 2013.

M. Sather: Moving across the river to Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, the city of Pitt Meadows is wanting to built a connector, as the minister may know, from Harris Road and Lougheed Highway across to the Golden Ears Way that connects to the north side of the Golden Ears Bridge. They call it the North Lougheed connector.

The previous minister had said they were in discussions with the city over the interchange there at Harris Road. I want to find out from the minister how much money the province has set aside for that interchange there in this budget and over the next three years.

[1745]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The North Lougheed connector is in the planning stage. Although this is a municipal jurisdiction, our ministry staff are actually working with them, I believe, on this. The impact for us would be the Harris Road intersection, and that would be a partnership in the funding model. It's in the planning process. It is too early to have money in the budget for that, but certainly well aware of it and well aware of the intent of where they would like to end up.

M. Sather: On the Golden Ears Bridge we've had a few problems, as the minister knows. Costs for 2011 are $71.4 million. Revenues are hoped to be $37.8 million, for a shortfall of $33.6 million, which the taxpayer has to foot.
[ Page 7368 ]

Now, the estimate for savings as a result of using the P3 model was to be only $6.3 million to $10.7 million. Compare that to a loss of $33.6 million for this year alone. That's a huge miscalculation, and it's costing the taxpayers a lot of money.

How long will the bridge be in a deficit position?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The Golden Ears is fully a TransLink project, so the question you've just asked would probably be best directed to TransLink.

Interjection.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Well, actually, I was up on one bridge, which was the Port Mann bridge, Member. If you've been on others, I encourage you, because the visit I had to the construction of the Port Mann was pretty incredible, to see a project of that going.

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, please. Through the Chair, please.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: As I said, your questions are best directed to TransLink. That's who has jurisdiction on the Golden Ears Bridge.

B. Ralston: My question concerns the operation of handyDART. I just want to give you a little bit of background.

I'm asking a question on behalf of a constituent whose name is Danelle Francoeur. She's a kidney patient and requires dialysis three times a week for four hours. She was diagnosed a couple of years ago and is on the wait-list for a kidney transplant. She lives on CPP. That's her sole source of income.

The handyDART transports her to the clinic in Newton and transports her home afterwards. The difficulty has arisen that…. She has no dispute with the drivers of the bus. They're very helpful. But the dispatchers are requiring and directing the dialysis patients to leave there at 9:35 p.m. ordinarily. Given the ebb and flow of traffic and the other patients that are on and have to be taken off the dialysis when they get there, they're not getting the full four hours that's medically required.

Sometimes in order to…. The nurses are forced to rush to get them off the machine and get them ready to be transported. So there's a serious health concern that not only she but a number of patients have that the schedule of the handyDART appears to be more concerned with possible overtime costs than the health concerns of these dialysis patients.

[1750]

Now, it does appear that there's been a temporary accommodation, but I'm seeking your assurance — if not now then perhaps later by letter — that the health requirements of these dialysis patients will be placed first and that handyDART will respect the dialysis schedule of these patients.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Obviously, the handyDART is a valuable service throughout this province. If I understand the member correctly, there has been a short-term solution found. I will go to work on this for you, and I will respond in writing to you to find out whether that short-term solution that you've just referred to is the permanent solution. Obviously, it's a very valuable service and one used by many people across this province.

R. Fleming: I know the minister hasn't had a lot of time to deal with recommendations coming from my region by B.C. Transit showing that light rail transit is the preferred technology for our identified corridor of Douglas to the West Shore communities. It's a very exciting recommendation that has the rare enjoyment of support from all five municipalities on the route, the B.C. Transit board of directors, the transit commission and the capital regional district. This is really at the heart of the regional growth strategy that has governed our land use for a number of years.

I appreciate that the minister hasn't had a lot of time to spend with this report. I think he's made some comments publicly. I want to ask him the really obvious question that's on the minds of everybody in this region that's looking at this exciting recommendation, and that's to do with where the money can be identified. The 2008 transit plan from the province only has $1.2 billion for, I think, nine bus rapid technology projects. So it's not only inadequate funding. It's also recommending technology that now the Crown corporation, B.C. Transit, rejects. So these are a couple big things for the minister and the ministry to consider and identify.

I guess that the first question I wanted to ask the minister is: thus far in considering this recommendation…. Obviously, the capital costs are higher for LRT, but I think the recommendation is backed by technical analysis because the benefits are so much greater, as well, in terms of how many people it can move, achieving significant ridership gains and other benefits around land use planning and densification along the nodes of the LRT. Then, of course, it aligns well with the province's targets to reduce greenhouse gases.

Given all that…. He's got the report now. The provincial transit plan is inadequate and didn't contemplate or support LRT in this community and others around B.C., but that is the recommendation of staff, and the analysis supports that. What will the minister do to either change the provincial transit plan or identify sources of funding that can make this achievable?

[1755]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Certainly, for the LRT proposal, I think a lot of work has gone into this. Like the member, I think it is quite a project. It has about a $950 million
[ Page 7369 ]
price tag, so right now B.C. Transit is putting together a business case. I expect to see that full business case presented to us this summer.

But a project of this magnitude would take probably the three funding partners that come to mind, obviously being the provincial government, the federal government and then the local community as well. So each of the proponents, or the funding partners as I've just outlined, once the business case is completed, I know, will take the opportunity to review that. But I don't think any one group is going to fund this project single-handedly.

I know I've heard from the community — probably not as much as the member himself — a great deal of support. The question is: how will it be funded? I think that's the question that will have to be determined.

R. Fleming: I appreciate the minister's answer. I want to ask him: will the province be taking the lead on this project? Obviously, it's a Crown corporation that reports to him that's made the recommendation. I think the capital region needs to understand whether the province will be taking the lead on the project.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: There's been no determination made on that. That would obviously be a discussion point that we would have. As in other projects, that is figured out through discussions — who would be the lead on the project, to deliver.

R. Fleming: I just want to ask the minister a last question on this. There's obviously a tremendous precedent in British Columbia — or one part of it, the Lower Mainland — for rail-based transportation projects. I think there are a lot of successes there, but one thing that has been observed over time, since the 1980s, is that it has gone from a 100 percent provincially funded model down to something significantly less.

I think on the Canada Line, TransLink was good for about 17 percent. There was federal and provincial support. I accept that there's a partnership there and that that has changed the way we do things. There is a federal partnership that is allowing Kitchener-Waterloo to be proceeding ahead with LRT, which is, I think, a comparable medium-sized city to the capital regional district for this technology.

I want to ask, in that regard, then, what the minister might be doing on behalf of the province to engage the federal government to help fund this project. What funds, to his knowledge, are available now under various infrastructure grants federally? If there are none that are an exact match for this, what kind of negotiations will he undertake? Will he call on his federal counterpart to work with him to help realize this project in the capital regional district and other parts of British Columbia that are interested in rail? I think the Fraser Valley has a very strong case as well.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: As I said earlier, Member, the first thing we need is the business case. Then what we will do is…. Obviously, the federal government will be aware of this and review it. We will. And we will enter into discussions with the federal government and our counterparts in Ottawa. I think it's reasonable to expect that we try to find some funding arrangement that would work for the people of Victoria, greater Victoria as well as the province, and we will do that.

[1800]

But the key issue here is the business case first coming forward. From that point, the valuation will be done on the business case. Should it proceed and move ahead, with the business case recommending that, then the discussions will go forward.

I will commit to you today that I will take on those discussions with my federal government counterparts as well to see where we can land this.

The Chair: Member for Coquitlam-Maillardville.

D. Thorne: Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's the first time you've had the opportunity to say that.

I'm only allowed one question. I have 16 questions that I want to ask, but I understand from my colleague that he has covered some of the Evergreen line information, so I'll be able to get that information for my community.

My two concerns. I'm just wondering very quickly what's happening with the RFQ — if that's been short-listed, or the status of that. I'm also wondering around the North Fraser perimeter road project. We're facing the same horrendous problems with getting a bridge built at the end of United Boulevard with New Westminster. I'm wondering if the minister is considering at all using any kind of a heavy hand or taking any kind of proactive action to push that along, because it looks like the North Fraser perimeter project is just going to stop dead at the new overpass.

So probably a pretty quick answer on both, really, I hope, or I'm in big trouble.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: You asked about the RFQ process. We have three short-listed proponents on that. There is some concern. They have been there now for ten months. On average, once you go through an RFQ and before you go to RFP, it would probably be in the three-month range, so, you know, we're really stretching the envelope there.

The North Fraser perimeter road is really a TransLink issue. You're right. The question and the answer will be short. There's nothing that I can add on that. I know they've taken a position on that.

As far as a heavy hand, no, I would not be inclined to use the heavy hand for fear that if I did, I am sure that
[ Page 7370 ]
you all would be upset at me for using a heavy hand. I'm a diplomat. I think things can be negotiated, and that's the way I'm going to approach it.

B. Simpson: I want to deal a little bit with flood management, preparatory management on the part of the Ministry of Transportation. We've done a lot of work in my office around winter preparation with the maintenance contractors and the Ministry of Transportation. It's just come to my attention that maybe I need to pay more attention to this.

The issue is, as the minister is probably aware, that three homes have been destroyed by government to pull them back so that they don't go into the river. One of the issues there was that one of those homes was being protected by some riprap that was placed in front of the home. Unfortunately, there wasn't enough riprap to take it around the corner, so the river started to back channel and create an island in that home.

[1805]

So I'm going to pull together a couple of things here for the minister, and we may have to have a follow-up question. The real issue that we discovered was that there was not sufficient material pre-prepared for the flood season. That material didn't exist. Access to one of the quarries was problematic, but the minute Ahbau bridge over Ahbau Creek came under threat, blasting occurred, riprap was found, and the public asset was protected.

I have residents who are up in arms about that particular issue. We're being told as of today that all riprap material available is for MOT purposes only. There is none for residents. I have flooding throughout my constituency. I'd like the minister, if he can't commit today, to commit to looking into that because I think it's patently unfair that the government controls all of the access to that material.

Then the final one is the issue of culvert cleaning. In a world where we're getting these catastrophic rain events and flood events, if the minister is paying attention and making that part of the mandate that these culverts actually get maintained to a higher level than they currently are so we protect our roads….

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I know the member knows this. The provincial flood response is the Solicitor General's responsibility. We work closely, certainly, through that. I know that I don't have to tell the member this. Safety is obviously of the utmost importance. We will make and have made available our people, our materials and our equipment.

I think we're probably going to have to, maybe, have some further discussion on this, Member. It's my understanding that you indicated there wasn't material available or whatever. I'm led to believe differently, so I would love to follow up on that with you. We will get the answers for you.

[1810]

The culvert maintenance is obviously the primary responsibility of the maintenance contractor. If you have individual cases or information, if I could ask the member to share that with me, I will ensure that we deal with it and get you an answer on that.

These are tremendous times. I mean, I couldn't imagine what these families are going through, you know. Certainly our thoughts go out to them. These are difficult times, but at the end of the day I think all of us…. You hear these incredible stories of people coming together to help one another. It's unfortunate when Mother Nature does what she does sometimes.

I will work with you on the questions that you've raised here and get you the answers. Whether it be riprap or whether it be the sand issue and the culvert, if you could put something forward to us, we'll do our best to answer those. Thanks.

G. Gentner: Hon. Chair, we want to reference the North Fraser perimeter road one last time. It was mentioned that it seems to be a project that is collapsing and that the minister is not going to use heavy-handedness in order to push this project through. Therefore, I'd like to know exactly the loss of that capacity and how it's going to affect the rest of the region.

The North Fraser perimeter road was built on the premise that the South Fraser perimeter road was built in tandem. They would move goods and services on the north side of the river and goods and services on the south side of the river. Where is that capacity going to go? How much of it will be directed onto the South Fraser perimeter road?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: As we spoke before on the North Fraser perimeter, obviously TransLink has made a determination that they're not going to proceed with this. Very recently that decision was made. We have not done the work to determine the types of questions the member has asked — what kind of impact that will have on the South Fraser perimeter, for example.

Once we do that work, Member, I will endeavour to speak with you on that. Again, this is a TransLink issue. They made that determination very recently. We will do the due diligence we need to, to address the issues you've raised here.

V. Huntington: One day I'm going to upset the apple cart and take all the time I need. As the minister can imagine, Mr. Chair, I have a list of questions the length of both arms, but we will try to collapse them into two.

Firstly, I would like to mention that I am extremely pleased with the attention I receive when I need answers to questions from Mr. Freer of the gateway program. This is an attempt to collapse one of those long lists of questions. However, I would like to know why it is that the member for Delta South, and probably the mem-
[ Page 7371 ]
ber for Delta North, is the last to find out when there are changes or applications being made to the environmental assessment office.

[1815]

I would think that the provincial member in whose riding this vast project is being undertaken would be given the courtesy of a briefing prior to learning it thirdhand or through the municipal council. I wonder if the minister would undertake to arrange that that courtesy be extended on a regular basis.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I will ensure that happens in the future, Member, if it hasn't. Obviously, I recognize your concerns. The question you've asked: would I do that? Yes, I will for the members.

V. Huntington: I truly appreciate that, Minister. It's hard enough as it is to keep on top of information. But when you're finding very significant changes to what your whole community thinks is happening — it's coming here, it's coming from there, and it's coming from everywhere — it would be very helpful to know and to be able to explain it fully to the community rather than have me write letters to you, like I've been doing, and comments in the press. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Another question, then — although I've been told to ask as many as I'd like — is on the dredging. Again, I appreciate very much Mr. Byng's and Svein Haugen's attention to this issue. I understand Mr. Haugen has taken back to the ministry his comments on what he saw during our tour of the — what shall we say? — sandbars that our homes and boats are sitting on.

I wonder if you can give me any update on what the ministry's position with regard to the negotiations with Port Metro Vancouver is in relation to how the extraction of the sediment — or the dredging — is going to be undertaken.

[1820]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The issue of dredging, obviously, is a recognized problem that we have. I know that the member has been in discussions with members of my staff, I believe, on this. The port of Metro Vancouver actually has about $7 million, I think, right now to move forward. I don't think that's enough, and I think that's a fair comment, I'm sure, that would come from the member. Also, we are in the process of renegotiating the head lease with the port of Metro Vancouver right now, and we will do what we can.

I will not stand here and tell you that we don't recognize there's an impact there and that there has to be a solution found. I think what I've given you as an answer is a start to that solution. I don't think it's the end-all, but we're committed to working together to find that solution.

With that, noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:21 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 © 2011: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175