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)

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 23, Number 1

[ Page 7373 ]

WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 2011

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1335]

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. de Jong: We're joined in the chamber today by two friends, Jack and Jean Robertson. Now, members will know that I have great respect for anyone who has taken the step of tying the knot and embarking upon the matrimonial journey. I stand in awe of any couple that has taken that step and stuck to it for 60 years, which is what Jack and Jean celebrated this past weekend — 60 years of matrimonial bliss.

They are here today with two friends who are visiting from Scotland, Tom and Muriel Lind, and I know all members will want to make the diamond jubilee couple feel very welcome today.

B. Routley: We have in the House today a longtime friend of mine and working buddy. Brian Butler is here today. He's currently the first vice-president of Local 1937 of the Steelworkers. But when Brian and I started out back in the '80s…. Well, for Brian, it was early '90s. He came out of the Cowichan Bay mill, a hard-working steelworker that represented forest workers on Vancouver Island and now represents forest workers all the way from the border in Washington State right up to Alaska.

With that, I would ask that you join with me in welcoming my buddy and brother, Brian Butler.

J. Yap: I have a number of guests in the gallery I would like to introduce to the House. First of all, two good friends and constituents, Pius and Cindy Chan, are here with us. They are accompanying a delegation from China, from Jiangsu province specifically.

Chairman Huang Dong Feng is here, leading a delegation to attend a venture capital conference in Vancouver. He is the chairman of the Jiangsu International Trust Corp., which is the investment arm of the provincial government of Jiangsu province. Chairman Huang is also a vice-minister in the provincial government of Jiangsu province.

With Chairman Huang are Tang Ning, Lu Zhen Dong, Lin Hong and Paul Leavitt, all from Nanjing in Jiangsu. Would the House please give a warm welcome to our guests.

Hon. T. Lake: Two of our colleagues from the Ministry of Environment have come over to the Legislature today to watch today's proceedings — their first time in the House — and they're very excited to be here for question period.

I'd like to introduce two gentlemen: David Lawes, the head of the community waste reduction section, environmental quality branch; and Jim Standen, another Kamloopsian, who is assistant deputy minister of environmental protection and assurance division.

Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: In the Speaker's gallery today is Professor Paddy Smith. Paddy is a distinguished professor of political science at Simon Fraser University. He has also for several years now been the academic director and has done a terrific job with the legislative internship program. I'd ask the House to please make him welcome.

R. Austin: Joining us in the gallery today is a young lady returning for her first visit, Angie Riano. She was a legislative intern here last year, helping us on the opposition side. She's now studying the law at the University of Alberta, and this is her first visit back. So give her a warm welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

ADDICTION RECOVERY PROGRAM

M. Dalton: I recently had the privilege to attend the seventh anniversary of Celebrate Recovery in Maple Ridge. Celebrate Recovery exists to serve the communities of Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge and meets every Friday evening at St. John the Divine Anglican under the auspices of the Ridge Meadows Ministerial Association.

[1340]

Celebrate Recovery provides a safe place for people from all different economic and cultural backgrounds to grow in their recovery by working through eight recovery principles and 12 steps while recognizing Jesus Christ as their higher power and restorer from the devastation of addiction, depression and dysfunctional relationships.

Celebrate Recovery's small groups meet weekly for those who struggle with a similar hurt, habit or hangup. Groups are led by trained facilitators and offer a safe place for people to be honest about areas where they hurt or experience defeat. Anonymity and confidentiality are basic requirements of the group.

Celebrate Recovery support groups are located across British Columbia and around the world and have their origins in the Saddleback Church with Pastor Rick Warren, author of The Purpose Driven Life, an all-time bestseller.
[ Page 7374 ]

Celebrate Recovery is a place to share. It's a refuge and a place of belonging where many experience a turning point in their lives. Numerous volunteers have kept Celebrate Recovery strong, including program director Carol Keating and her husband, Barry; Mike and Bernadette Sleeman; Paul and Micheline Surridge; Linda Lambie; Susan Kaliczak; Cheryl Cloutier; Lorne Havisto; and other newer team members.

They provide a labour of love in a ministry that has been a source of healing for so many. Would the House please join me in expressing appreciation for the work of Celebrate Recovery across this province.

ASIAN HERITAGE MONTH

M. Elmore: May is Asian Heritage Month, and the month of May is officially recognized as such, a month dedicated to acknowledging the long and rich history and continued growth of Asian Canadians. We celebrate the diversity within the community and the contributions made by Asian Canadians towards creating the Canada we know today and the new Canada of tomorrow.

Asian Canadians have been instrumental in contributing to the areas of arts, sciences, business, environment, government, strengthening the ethnic cultural capital and so much more. Across B.C. many communities hold festivals and events in honour of this month. The Vancouver Asian Heritage Month Society is hosting the explorAsian Festival, inviting the wider community to experience the diversity of Asian-Canadian life and explore Asian-Canadian arts and culture.

While we celebrate the many achievements and accomplishments, there also remain many challenges to overcome — regressive changes to Canada's immigration laws, justice for temporary foreign workers and the need to improve the recognition of foreign credentials in order to address the full economic and social integration of newcomers in Canada.

As May comes to an end, there are still several events being held to further educate and celebrate Asian Heritage Month. I encourage you all to come out and enjoy a cultural presentation or artist exhibition and really experience a unique facet of British Columbia's diverse population.

IMMIGRANT ENTREPRENEURS

R. Lee: On Wednesday, May 18, the Ethno Business Council of B.C. hosted the 18th annual New-Canadian Entrepreneur Awards in Vancouver. We all know how important the contributions of new immigrants are to our economy and cultural diversity here in B.C.

For 23 years the council has provided a place for new Canadian entrepreneurs to share information, create awareness and work together to support each other. The New-Canadian Entrepreneur Awards commemorate the importance of small and medium multicultural businesses in B.C., celebrating the achievements of new Canadian entrepreneurs.

This year's winners are a very noteworthy group of people. Don Yuen, the founder of Fairway Market, was the winner of the Lifetime Achievement award. Don started working in the grocery business in 1950 and opened his first store in 1963. His ten stores are now located from Victoria to Port Alberni.

The winners in other categories were: in manufacturing, Azar Moayeri for her business Parissa, one of the top natural brands in the world; in export, Joshua Huen for Dr. Battery, a brand which is in 25 countries; in retail, the Karim family for InnHouse Group of Companies, one of the top-ten fastest-growing companies in B.C.; in service, Mohammed Yasin for M. Yasin and Co.; in technology, Riaz Pisani for Contac Services; and in wholesale, John Llewellyn for Celtic Distributors.

[1345]

These entrepreneurs have contributed to our society with their innovative ideas, financial investments and excellent services, creating many jobs in B.C. for B.C.'s families. I encourage all members to join me in acknowledging the impressive contributions of these individuals, who've shown excellence in their businesses, personality, leadership and community involvement.

BOB BECKETT

J. Horgan: All members have individuals in their community that just give that extra bit, that go that extra mile. Here in the capital region CFAX 1070 acknowledges those community leaders every year, and this year's community leader is from my community, Chief Bob Beckett, the fire chief in the city of Langford.

I want to rise today and speak a little about Mr. Beckett. Many members of this place will know him. He started his career abroad and then became a firefighter in the city of Waterloo in 1974. From there he became a volunteer in other communities. He's been a paramedic in war-torn Sarajevo and came to the city of Langford in 1996.

When tragedy struck in New York on September 11, 2001, Chief Beckett, along with Const. Bruce Brown from the RCMP detachment in Langford and Mayor Stew Young visited New York and brought money that had been raised on the West Shore to assist families of Americans killed during that tragedy.

Bob has been instrumental in the success of cooperative efforts between Rotary clubs, the Canadian military, the city of Langford and Langford Fire Rescue in bringing much-needed equipment and expertise to Kabul and Kandahar during the activities in Afghanistan. It's things like that that separate Chief Bob Beckett from others in our community.
[ Page 7375 ]

Most recently he's returned from his fourth visit to Haiti, where he and others have been building a new orphanage so that those that were affected by the earthquake last year will have a roof over their heads and a bed to sleep in.

I want to raise my attention and the attention of all members to individuals like Bob Beckett in the city of Langford and people like him right across British Columbia who continue to give and give and give and who are, as CFAX 1070 acknowledged this year, truly community leaders.

RESOURCE ROADS

B. Bennett: I am speaking today about B.C.'s 400,000 kilometres of resource roads and the hundreds of thousands of British Columbians who use them and enjoy them — British Columbians who prospect for minerals, ranch, fish, hunt, hike, trap, guide, photograph, mountain-bike, berry-pick, mushroom-pick, camp, geocache, quad or snowmobile, and probably for many other purposes as well.

Resource roads are mostly built by the forest industry, with some important exceptions, mostly in the northeast. When the company is using the road, it is responsible to maintain the resource road. When the company no longer needs the road, it is typically obligated to decommission the road.

If there is a solid environmental reason why the road should be decommissioned, then of course I support that. However, too many resource roads are being destroyed unnecessarily. Resource roads have evolved into platforms for broad rural economic growth, such as nature-based tourism, mineral exploration, trapping, guide-outfitting, outdoor recreation.

British Columbians are very passionate about their mountain-biking, their horseback-riding, their hiking, their hunting, their fishing, their camping, their quadding, their snowmobiling and their berry-picking. When the road to your favourite trail or favourite fishing spot is closed for no apparent environmental benefit, British Columbians are…. Well, let's just say they're disappointed.

This recreation has a significant economic value as well; 270,000 freshwater anglers from B.C. spend over a half-billion dollars every year, and 70 percent of that is spent in rural British Columbia.

ATV use — 12 percent annually and increasing. The average ATV recreationalist spends seven nights in rented accommodation each year. In the Valemount-McBride region, where the Solicitor General is from, 20,000 to 25,000 snowmobilers — tourists, actually — bring their Alberta dollars to this region each winter, and they use eight resource roads.

The point is that the public use of resource roads has changed dramatically, and our approaches to managing these roads needs some review. I'll be looking forward to working with the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations to ensure that our management of resource roads supports the diversified use and enjoyment by British Columbians.

[1350]

WOMEN'S INVOLVEMENT IN
VIDEO GAME SECTOR

M. Mungall: Well, like many girls in the 1980s, I was glued to my Atari playing Ms. Pac-Man. By the time I was ten years old, Tetris was on the scene, with Nintendo entertainment systems and Nintendo Game Boys. You can bet that my hand-held game device was called a Game Girl.

Despite many gamers being female, we are still the minority, not unlike in this House. Of no coincidence, most video games are developed by and for boys. Not only is this totally unfair and absolutely not much fun, but it impacts girls' future interest in the tech sector, which is a growing part of our economy.

Never fear, though. We have two superheroines to rescue us from this drab situation for girl gamers. Brenda Bailey Gershkovitch and Kirsten Forbes are Silicon Sisters Interactive, Canada's first female-owned and -operated video game company.

This past April they launched a video game for girls. School 26 is the duo's first release and is now available for iPads, iPhones, PCs, Macs and Android phones.

The game's main character is Kate, a student whose nomadic family has made it difficult for her to maintain long-term friendships. As she enrols in her 26th new school, she and her parents strike a deal. If Kate makes good friends here, the family will stay put. Now the player must help Kate use intuition, empathy and strategy to build friendships and navigate the moral dilemmas of high school.

Last month I visited with the Silicon Sisters and played my first game of School 26. Now, while designed for girls age 12 to 16, I know any woman would enjoy the opportunity to go back to high school with all that she knows now. So here's to girl gamers and girl power and to the Silicon Sisters for making us a video game.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT CHANGES TO
HARMONIZED SALES TAX

A. Dix: My question is to the Minister of Finance. I don't know which of the troika of economic destruction he is today, but in any event, this is a straightforward question to him. He'll know that Premier Clark said on March 21…. I know that was early in her reign.
[ Page 7376 ]

She said: "We aren't going to be talking about trying to reduce it by a point or two" — referring to the HST — "before the referendum. I mean, I think people will see that as buying them with their own money."

It's been a long two months.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Member.

A. Dix: I almost feel like reading that quote again.

Will the Minister of Finance not agree that that's exactly what the government is doing today?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, what this Premier has done is make sure that we follow through on her commitment to raise the minimum wage, which has been done as committed.

[1355]

This Premier followed through on her commitment to move forward the referendum date from September to June, which has been done. And this Premier directed myself and my colleagues to engage in the largest listening exercise ever held in the history of the province of British Columbia.

The result of all that is that we listened, but didn't just listen. We responded by committing to march down the HST rate to 10 percent to improve it for every family in every income bracket in British Columbia. That's what we did on this side of the House.

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

A. Dix: I just don't think the minister heard my question at all. I don't think he heard it at all. He said in the leadership campaign…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: …that Premier Clark had a ready-fire-aim approach to policy-making.

You know, he is the Minister of Finance. I know he's the Minister of Finance and all. He's managed to spend the forecast allowance in the contingency fund for four years today. That's what he did. That's what he did today.

Can he possibly explain, given all that he's said over the last little while, this extraordinary set of gimmicks and magic today that he's produced? Can he possibly explain to the people of B.C. why he's attempting to buy votes in a referendum campaign, when he should be acting responsibly in the interests of the people of B.C.?

Hon. K. Falcon: It's remarkable. We engage in a consultation process. Over 275,000 British Columbians participated, and one of the common threads of that discussion was a request from the public to make sure that we reduce or minimize the impact of HST. Not only did we do that…. We not only eliminated the $350 cost for average families; we actually improved it, to the point where they're $120 ahead, on average, for British Columbians.

You know, for this Leader of the Opposition, who was chief of staff to a government that ran eight successive deficit budgets, missed every single budget target they set, stopped producing budget plans because they were so embarrassed by their record…. For him to talk about fiscal credibility is truly the highlight of this question period.

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

A. Dix: The 2009 election. The Minister of Finance and all of them over there said: "We're not going to bring in the HST." A year later they brought in a budget. They said that every penny, every centime, every peso, every ruble will go to health care. Every ruble will go to health care. That's what they said.

And now, hon. Speaker, can you believe it? Can you believe this nonsense?

The people of B.C. had the largest consultation ever on the HST. They signed initiatives. It's their referendum. Why doesn't the Minister of Finance admit today that he's trying to take that right away from them, trying to buy a referendum with public funds? Why doesn't he withdraw the HST?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just wait, Minister.

[1400]

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, this is ridiculous. We not only are not taking away the right to vote….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm glad to see them applaud so heartily on their own ridiculousness. I'll figure that one out later.

Nevertheless, let me just say this. I get that this might be uncomfortable for the Leader of the Opposition. I get that he doesn't like the fact that we listened to British Columbians.

We've improved the HST, and I have no doubt that he is entirely uncomfortable with the fact that he is going to be advocating and campaigning on a 12 percent PST plus GST. We are campaigning on retaining a tax
[ Page 7377 ]
that every independent expert says is the right way to go, and we're marching it down to 10 percent. That is the clear difference.

I will also say this in closing on this question. I am quite happy to put our record of fiscal accountability and our triple-A credit rating up against eight consecutive deficits, multiple credit-rating downgrades and the disaster that the NDP government was in the 1990s.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

IMPACT OF
HARMONIZED SALES TAX REDUCTION

B. Ralston: Let me turn once again to another recent quote from the Premier during the B.C. Liberal leadership campaign.

"Cutting the HST by 1 point is more than $800 million out of the budget this year and every year after, $1.6 billion for a 2-point cut, and we need to ask ourselves where we're going to get that money, because we're either going to have a $1.6-billion-bigger deficit, or we're going to get $1.6 billion fewer heart operations, special needs teachers, school facilities, hospital emergency rooms. I mean, that's where the money comes from, ultimately. So yes, the government could cut it, but at what cost to citizens?"

So British Columbians are now warned to expect program cuts, but the question is when. Will those announcements be made before the House adjourns? Will they be made before the next election or, probably more true to form, hidden during the next election campaign?

Hon. K. Falcon: The Finance critic was actually at the lockup today and got to listen to exactly how that is going to be done within the context of a balanced budget. But what I find very interesting is that what he did not talk about is their own option.

You see, the NDP preferred option is to go back to a 12 percent PST plus GST, knowing full well that that has an over $3 billion hit to the fiscal plan negatively just within this three-year period. That's the NDP opposition plan.

I can tell you that what we demonstrated today very clearly is that an improved HST — even marching it down to 10 percent, even with the transition payments that will be going out to families with children and low- and modest-income seniors — is still financially much more responsible, much more sound than going back to the NDP's preferred option of a 12 percent PST and GST. That's what we demonstrated today.

[1405]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Well, it's clear from the answer of the Minister of Finance that he'll do anything, say anything to avoid defending his own Premier.

Mr. Tostenson, the CEO of the Restaurant and Foodservices Association, said today that the fix that was announced today doesn't help his members. He said, referring to the B.C. Liberals: "I think they are mad at us." On top of this, the government is increasing taxes for small business.

Why is the minister asking small business to bear a disproportionate burden of covering up this government's lies and deceptions?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Before we continue, I want to remind the member to choose his words more carefully.

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, now we are going truly into the area of bizarro. The fact that this member is asking that question is unbelievable.

Let's just recap for a moment the choice that British Columbians have. The choice is a prudent, responsible marching-down of the rate to 10 percent and transition payments for families with children, $175 for each and every child — a typical family has two children; that's $350 — and, of course, $175 for low-income and modest-income seniors, up to $40,000. That is one choice.

The other choice is the NDP, so let's recap their option. Go back to a 12 percent PST plus GST. Reimposing the PST is one of the most damaging things that you can do to the business community. That's number one. We also know from the Leader of the Opposition's previous comments that he wants to roll back tax rates to 2008 — that means an 80 percent increase in the small business tax rate, a 20 percent increase in the general corporate tax rate — and reimpose the PST on small business. That is a recipe for economic devastation.

This is a sound policy that I believe British Columbians will support, as opposed to the thoughtless, ridiculous option that the NDP leader is putting forward for British Columbians.

GOVERNMENT CHANGES TO
HARMONIZED SALES TAX

C. James: For this Finance Minister to call this B.C. Liberal direction on the HST sound fiscal policy would be laughable if families weren't being hurt every day by this tax in this province.

Families in B.C. are going to take a look at the B.C. Liberal record on the HST. They told the public that they wouldn't bring it in before the election. In fact, they even put it in writing. What happened after the election? They brought in the HST. They said it would be revenue-neutral. Well, now it's not going to be revenue-neutral anymore. They told consumers that they would save dollars, and now they're paying more.
[ Page 7378 ]
It's clear that the B.C. Liberals can't be trusted, especially on the HST.

To the Finance Minister: why should the public trust them now?

Hon. K. Falcon: As you know, the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill was in this Legislature when we canvassed the fact…. In the fall 2009 budget update, it was stated very clearly: initially revenue-neutral, but growing revenues in the future. Budget 2010, Budget 2011 — they all said the same thing.

I am very interested in the fact that the members just a week ago were hitting us over the head over the independent panel report. They were quoting from it, pointing out correctly that the independent panel pointed out that the average family will see a $350 average annual cost as a result of the HST.

What she conveniently overlooked in her question was that, under the plan that we put in place today, that turns from a $350 cost to a $120 benefit for every family, on average, in British Columbia.

[1410]

I will also point out two additional things. It includes transition payments to families with children of $175 for each child, and it also includes maintaining the $230 rebate that we provide to every low-income British Columbian. In spite of the reduction of the HST, that still maintains that $230. Lower-income families, in particular, are even further ahead under this approach.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. James: Didn't anyone on that side of the House, didn't any B.C. Liberal, learn anything from bringing in the HST? The public wants the truth. The public have had enough of the B.C. Liberal spin.

The government is trying to convince the public that a bad tax is good for them, using the public's own money. Well, the public has had enough of the HST. They've had enough of the B.C. Liberals. They've had enough of that spin.

My question to the Finance Minister: when will he stop playing games with the referendum?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, what we did was we went out and we listened to the public, and we responded to what we heard from the public — 275,000 British Columbians taking part in the largest listening exercise in the history of the province. I'm proud of not only undertaking that exercise at the direction of our Premier but also responding to what we heard, and what we heard from British Columbians is that they want us to minimize the impact of the HST.

We've not only minimized it; we've eliminated it. We've made it better for every family in British Columbia, regardless of income bracket, and in particular, for lower-income British Columbians. The approach that the NDP want to do and will be campaigning on is going back to a 12 percent PST plus GST with no rebates for children and only a $75 PST rebate for adults. They can go ahead and campaign on that. We will be going forward with what we heard from the public: improve the HST. We've done that.

D. Donaldson: Well, we hear talk of listening. Let me tell you that the people of the province are listening right now. All they're hearing from this government is a desperate attempt to save the HST at any cost.

First, it was no HST before the election. Then they all voted for the HST after the election. They said it would be revenue-neutral; now it's not. Then it was going to save the economy. Today we learned from the Premier's desperate announcements that it will cost billions to the people in this province — billions to buy their vote on the HST with their own money. One thing is clear: families will be paying for this government's deceitful behaviour on the HST for years to come.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

D. Donaldson: Given that they are grasping at ways to save their tax at any cost, would the Minister of Finance agree that his B.C. Liberal government cannot be trusted on anything they say about the HST?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, by the very nature of that question, it demonstrates very clearly that the member for Stikine has not even read some of the most fundamental elements of the information that was presented today.

[1415]

When that member talks about impacts in the billions of dollars, he actually is referring to his own preferred plan of going back to the PST plus GST — a $3 billion hit, a negative hit, to the provincial finances under that member's preferred option.

Now, I am quite happy to compare our record of fiscal credibility, our triple-A credit rating, that we have on this side of the House — the fact that we meet our budget targets, the fact that we delivered on 37 percent income tax reductions in British Columbia that they voted against, on the fact that we marched the general corporate tax rate from 16½ to 10 percent, the fact that we took the small business rate from 4½ to 2½ percent.

They voted against every single one of those tax reductions, and now they're going to push for an option that is going to see a 12 percent PST plus GST. Well,
[ Page 7379 ]
I would gladly put our improved HST up against that any day of the week.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: Well, the minister brings up the economic record. The Conference Board of Canada today says: "B.C.'s economy is in a lull." We are "the exception," they say, "to an otherwise strong economy across western Canada." Now we hear today that the gimmicky announcements that are announced by this government are going to cause small businesses to pay more than $280 million a year in taxes. It's a chaotic tax policy made up on the fly in the last few weeks.

Considering our economy is in a lull, can the Finance Minister explain how billions of dollars in costs they announced today in a desperate attempt to save the HST is an example of good financial management?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, first of all, the member talks about a lull. Let's talk about: in the tank in the 1990s, when we actually became a have-not province, for the first time in our history, under your government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'll be charitable to the member. I don't believe the member for Stikine actually understands what the leader of his own party has said with respect to his business tax plans. He has actually said…. Here, let's recap what the NDP want to do: (1) they want to move back to a 12 percent PST plus GST, (2) they want to raise small business taxes by 80 percent, and (3) they want to raise the general corporate tax rate by 12 percent.

That is an economic trifecta that will devastate and demolish confidence in the small business community from one end of this province to the other. I will put our record of economic accomplishment up against the NDP's any day of the week.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Kwan: It is actually the Minister of Finance who doesn't understand what his own Premier is doing. Let's just actually review her words. Premier Clark said in March that she's against buying people's votes with their own money. That's what she said. Now today, of course, the government announces the fix to the HST. So with the fix today, the Premier is trying to buy people's votes.

[1420]

Will the Minister of Finance just admit that the B.C. Liberals are trying to buy B.C. taxpayers' votes, or is the Premier just misleading British Columbians once again?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, this is a Premier that moved forward the referendum date from September up to June. This is a Premier that oversaw the largest listening exercise with British Columbians on how we might improve the HST. This is a Premier that always made it clear that any improvement would have to be done within the context of a balanced budget. That's exactly what has been delivered today.

What I find so fascinating is that the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, one of the architects of one of the worst governments in the history of the province of British Columbia, wants, for her constituents, to go back to a PST plus GST of 12 percent, ignore the improvements that a lower rate of 10 percent would provide for every single British Columbian, especially low-income British Columbians, and the rebate that is provided under HST which disappears under the PST. I find that fascinating.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: Actually, this is a Premier who said she that was against the referendum vote and wanted the B.C. Liberals to vote against the HST in this Legislature, in the House. Oops, oops. That was then, and this is now. Then, of course, she said: "Oh well, we don't want to buy British Columbians' votes with the HST." But that was then, and this is now.

Let us just look at this for a second. After the 2009 election the B.C. Liberals misled British Columbians about the HST. Premier Gordon Campbell — what did he do? He actually….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Kwan: Premier Gordon Campbell then tried to buy British Columbians' votes with a 15 percent tax cut after the election. Guess what. That worked like a lead balloon. Here we are once again, the same playbook.

Will the Minister of Finance just admit for once that the Premier is trying to mislead British Columbians once again, and will he also just acknowledge that British Columbians will not be fooled once again?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, this is a Premier who followed through on her commitment to increase the minimum
[ Page 7380 ]
wage. This is a Premier who followed through on her commitment to restore gaming grants. This is a Premier who followed through on her commitment to move forward the referendum date. This is a Premier who followed through on her plan to put forward a bold improvement to the HST, to improve the HST based on what we heard from British Columbians. And this is a Premier that said we would do it within the context of a balanced budget.

I will put this Premier's record and this commitment to march that rate down to 10 percent with transition payments for families, with transition payments for seniors up against the NDP plan to campaign for a 12 percent GST plus PST, with an 80 percent increase in the small business tax rate, a 20 percent increase in the general corporate tax rate any day of the week.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we didn't hear the bell, but it did end question period.

[End of question period.]

J. Horgan: I'd like to table a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

J. Horgan: I have a petition signed by 116 residents of the Lower Mainland concerned about the health effects of the results of using wireless technology. The petition calls on the government to repeal those sections of the Clean Energy Act currently mandating smart meters for B.C. residents until such time as the Utilities Commission can deploy wired, smart-meter systems standard using wired connections and communications of monitoring.

[1425]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Notice of Motions

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO REPORTS BY
JUDGES COMPENSATION AND JUDICIAL
JUSTICES COMPENSATION COMMISSIONS

Hon. B. Penner: I rise to advise the House…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. B. Penner: …that I have tabled today a notice of motion in my name containing the response of the government to the final report of the 2010 British Columbia Judges Compensation Commission accepting eight of the 15 recommendations and rejecting the balance, as well as a document setting out the reasons for the government's response to the report.

I also tabled a notice of motion in my name containing the response of the government to the report and recommendations of the 2010 Judicial Justices Compensation Commission accepting four of the ten recommendations and rejecting the balance, and a further document setting out the reasons for government's response to that report.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't think I can make the next little piece as exciting as what we just viewed.

In this House I'm sure the critic and the minister will actually raise the bar this afternoon, as the Ministry of Health continues its debates in the big House. In Committee A we will be doing the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development.

[1430]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:31 p.m.

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

Hon. M. de Jong: When we were engaged in the discussion yesterday, one of the hon. critic's colleagues — I believe, the member for Stikine — posed some questions about the situation in Dease Lake, about the airport. Maybe I'll wait to see if the member for Stikine arrives, and if he does, I'll take advantage of the opportunity to alert him to what we have discovered.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate my hon. colleague's comments, and we will make sure that the member for Stikine has an opportunity to hear.

This afternoon some of my colleagues will want to continue on from yesterday where we were talking about facilities. Colleagues will be doing that. Then we'll go back to the main critic-minister discussion.

With that, I know my colleague from Surrey-Panorama — no, Surrey-Tynehead…. Oh, Fleetwood.
[ Page 7381 ]

The Chair: I recognize the member for Surrey-Fleetwood, but thanks for your help.

J. Brar: I would like to ask a question about the out-patient facility being built in Surrey. Actually, the Minister of Health fell in love with the city of Surrey for quite a while, for quite some time. I know that the minister goes to the city of Surrey every Friday to deliver a talk show, and I'm sure the minister understands very clearly the health care needs of the people of Surrey.

I would like to ask very brief questions. The first question is around the out-patient facility. In 2005 the Fraser Health Authority submitted a report to the Minister of Health. A key recommendation in that report was to build a new out-patient facility to meet the health care needs of the people of Surrey. Subsequently the then Minister of Health went to Surrey and embraced that recommendation, saying that the government actually will work on that.

Subsequent to that, the Premier went to Surrey and made the announcement that the government is going to build the out-patient facility. My understanding is that that facility is quite ready and that there may be a ribbon-cutting ceremony in the near future. I would like to ask the minister: when will the new out-patient facility be ready for operation, and what are the staffing requirements to run that facility?

Hon. M. de Jong: Madam Chair, I happily see the member for Stikine. A moment ago I indicated that we'd received some additional information on the matter. If the member for Surrey will permit me, I'll relay that information to his colleague so that he can get on with whatever other obligations he may have.

[1435]

Here are the facts that we have been able to determine. Over the past three years the following number of patients has been medevacked out of Dease Lake. In '07-08 it was 33; in '08-09, 18 patients; in '09-10, 23 patients medevacked out of Dease Lake at the airport.

The no-night-flight announcement that is the subject of our discussion today and yesterday took effect on March 23, 2011. Whilst physicians have some experience in how to manage through those restrictions and, of course, in Dease Lake are confronted by some other meteorological challenges, we understand the concern relating to the more limited use of the airport.

Ultimately, the responsibility for maintenance at Dease Lake rests with the local airport authority, and that's under the jurisdiction of Transport Canada. I have been assured by staff from the B.C. Ambulance Service that Transport Canada and Northern Health have been working to try and solve the issue for the last number of weeks and are continuing to work closely with the Stikine Airport Society and municipality to ensure that supports for the provision of emergency air transport for Dease Lake residents are met.

That's probably a rather long-winded way of saying that all of the relevant agencies seem to be working together to try and address the issue and the impediment that has been in place since March 23.

That's the update I have for the member today, and we'll endeavour to keep him informed as progress is made.

D. Donaldson: I thank the minister for the update and the staff who provided him with that information.

I know that the minister would agree that regardless of the number of flights in and out of there, the fact that no night flight service is currently available could mean a matter of serious injury or life and death for people, and since the province is providing air ambulance service to that region, it's acknowledging that there is a need for that kind of service.

I look forward to a prompt resolution, and I will follow up with the minister and with the authorities he mentions because, as he likely knows, we're entering a very busy period in that area.

Economically, it's very important for the rest of the province. A lot of exploration work will be occurring in the next few months — and mining activity. So the importance of the night flight availability is even heightened by that, let alone for the residents.

Thank you for the answer, and I'll be following up with the minister and the other authorities.

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member: I have, as I indicated yesterday, some appreciation for the extent of the isolation that members of the community feel. It is important.

By the way, I agree wholeheartedly with the proposition that one of the underlying tenets and objectives of the economic policies that the government is endeavouring to follow and promote is to make sure an airport and a community like Dease Lake become even more busy, which of course heightens the measure of importance to ensuring the facilities can be properly utilized. We'll keep one another informed.

The member for Surrey-Fleetwood has asked a specific question. You know, my roots to the member's riding stretch back further. I attended my first day of elementary school in a school located in his riding. So check the records, but not too closely.

I'm just going to take a moment to get some detailed answers around the dates for completion, and staffing, I think, was the second area that the member posed a question about.

[1440]

The member will know that construction commenced on the project we are discussing in September '08. The objective was to have patients receiving treatment and
[ Page 7382 ]
service by June of 2011. We are on target to meet that, starting next month. In fact, if he hasn't received notice, I can give him notice today. I believe there is a formal ceremony scheduled for early next week commemorating completion of the work and commissioning. I'll be happy to provide him with more details about that.

J. Brar: I would like to just go back. The promise which was made to the people of Surrey was that the completion would be done by 2009, initially, and then it was delayed. I understand that, but I think even then I would like to say that it will be a victory for the people of Surrey once this facility is up and running.

At this point in time…. I didn't hear anything about the staffing requirement. I know the building is up and ready. I still don't know what the additional staffing requirement is to operate this facility. Is there any information about that, or will that come later?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm actually pleased that the member has asked the question because it provides an opportunity to emphasize and highlight an important aspect of these major capital projects.

We tend to, for understandable reasons, become fixated with the cost associated with the construction of the building, whether it's several hundreds of millions of dollars down the road at Surrey Memorial…. I think it's the largest single capital investment in the history of the province — over half a billion dollars in the expansion at Surrey Memorial.

That represents but a small proportion of the ultimate cost associated with the operation of the facility. In the case of the Pattison outpatient care and surgery centre, I am advised that upwards of 190 physicians — that's just 190 physicians — will be based at the centre and providing service to patients.

I'm going to get some additional information for the member relating to the myriad of important support staff and health care partners: the nurses, the technicians, all of the other folks that actually represent the soul of any kind of a health care facility.

[1445]

So when you consider the operating costs associated with the centre, we're actually not talking about an investment of several hundred millions of dollars. We're talking about an investment that exceeds a billion dollars — in fact, over the life of the project several billions of dollars. It is significant. I believe that the people of Surrey and surrounding area are going to receive a state-of-the-art facility with a quality of service that is unrivalled anywhere.

It's good news, but the member is quite correct to point out that it is ultimately the people that deliver that service. There will be many hundreds based at this facility, in addition to the 190 physicians that we estimate will call this their professional home. I'll get some additional information for the member about some of those other professionals and partners.

J. Brar: Thanks to the minister for the response.

I understand that this is an out-patient facility adjacent to Surrey Memorial Hospital, and I understand that there will be doctors who are now working at Surrey Memorial Hospital working at the out-patient facility.

What I didn't get the answer to is…. I'm asking about the net additional staffing to operate this facility. I would certainly, keeping in mind the time, appreciate it — if the minister has that information to provide — if there's any information as to what the additional requirement is to run or to operate this facility on a day-to-day basis in addition to the staff we already have at Surrey Memorial Hospital.

That's what my question is, if there's any clarification at this point in time. If the information is not available, I wouldn't mind getting the information a little later.

Hon. M. de Jong: I can advise the member that in addition to the physicians that I referred to a moment ago, upwards of 600 additional staff will be based in the facility. Now, some of those, in fairness, will be reassigned from other facilities in the health authority. The number I will endeavour to get for the member is what the net increase in the staffing component will be for the operation of the Pattison centre.

J. Brar: I do have one more question. I would probably leave this question at this point in time. I was certainly still not satisfied with the answer I got. I'm asking…. I understand that 160 — I don't exactly remember; a hundred-something — physicians will be placed in that building, but my understanding is that those are not new physicians completely. Those are physicians who are already working at Surrey Memorial. So I would certainly expect the information coming in the future.

The second question I have is about the Surrey Memorial Hospital emergency room. I think the minister is well aware that that was the second promise made by the B.C. Liberals in 2005 — that there will be a new emergency room to meet the growing population needs of the city of Surrey.

The promise was made to complete the building, complete the construction, by 2010. Subsequently that was delayed to 2014. I know the construction is on, but it's due in 2014, which is almost three years from today.

I would like to ask the minister this final question. The minister is well aware that the emergency room at Surrey Memorial Hospital is one of the busiest emergency rooms we have in the province. A few days ago there was news in the newspaper, which was the Province, May 17. The headline is "Woman's 19-Hour Wait in ER Prompts Probe." I just want to read from that news very briefly to the minister.
[ Page 7383 ]

"Fraser Health is launching an investigation after a Surrey woman's agonizing 19-hour wait at Surrey Memorial Hospital's notorious emergency ward. The ward is chronically overcrowded, often unable to cope with the ever-increasing demands of one of Canada's fastest-growing cities while a much-needed and much larger emergency ward is being built.

[1450]

"In a damning letter to both Fraser Health and the Minister of Health Marine Montani describes how she was forced to sit and then stand for her overnight stay as 65 people crowded into the ward. Montani was advised to go to the emergency ward when she described her symptoms after phoning the 811 provincial medical help line. 'I would rather wither away and die than go back there,' said the 63-year-old after her overnight horror story."

That's what we hear on a regular basis.

My question to the minister is this. I understand the new ER is being built, but that will be ready in three years down the road. So in the meantime, what steps is the minister taking to reduce the wait-times at the Surrey Memorial emergency room in the short run, if there are any?

Hon. M. de Jong: Going back to the issue we were canvassing just a moment ago. Happily, the ever-efficient officials have been able to advise me that of the approximately 600 new staff — which, because of some part-time and job-sharing, is about 517 FTEs — at the Pattison centre, there are approximately 110 transfers from other departments and other facilities and just over 400 new people that will be employed by the health authority and servicing patients in various capacities at the new Pattison centre.

The question that the member has asked relating to Surrey Memorial, of course, highlights a challenge that we face in many places in the province with either a growing population or an aging population — or, in some cases, both. As I indicated a few moments ago, Surrey Memorial represents at present the single largest investment in health care infrastructure, in hospital expansion.

The ER — the emergency room and the emergency department — is designed to roughly quadruple the capacity that is presently there. That is necessary because of the numbers and the visits that already take place. The project has been arranged and configured in a way that will see the emergency department completed first, or at the front end, and become commissioned and available for use in advance — I think approximately a year in advance — of some of the other important components of the project.

There will be pressure, ongoing pressure, in the meantime, and there's no question that staff will continue to feel that pressure. In the ebb and flow that characterizes an emergency department through the seasons, over the next year or two they will continue to feel that pressure.

I am hopeful, though, that just as was the case in what was previously the largest single investment in health care infrastructure, the replacement of the old Abbotsford Hospital with the new regional hospital and cancer treatment centre, the fact that improvement is at hand will provide those dedicated personnel with some comfort and the understanding and appreciation that better days lie ahead.

There is, as many, many health care professionals have told me, something very special about moving into a new facility and being amongst the first to treat patients in that facility. It's a little ways off in the case of Surrey Memorial and the emergency department, but with construction well underway, people arriving at work can now look at that site and measure in months the length of time before they will be moving into that facility and all of the improvements that that will represent.

I thank the member for raising the questions around Surrey Memorial.

[1455]

S. Chandra Herbert: It's a question I've raised with the minister before and a question I've raised with previous ministers, but I just want to get it on the record. I wanted to ask the minister if he is committed, as a previous Health Minister with the B.C. Liberals — the now Finance Minister — was committed, to keeping St. Paul's Hospital in the downtown core, in the West End, with its current capacities. That's the first question I've got on St. Paul's.

Hon. M. de Jong: It's a good opportunity to reaffirm on the record what I indicated to the member in previous conversations, and that is that the work that is presently being undertaken to examine the various options for the redevelopment and evolution of the St. Paul's Hospital presently does not contemplate a relocation of that facility.

I know that the member will canvass further the status of those redevelopment plans, but I will, as I think I said previously, point out that I will not be in a position today or tomorrow to indicate imminent construction on that site. But this will be a good opportunity to hear from the member about what he and some of his constituents think about the matter.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thanks to the minister. I'm glad to hear that the government is not considering moving St. Paul's Hospital out of our community any longer. That is a real win for our community, and I'm really glad that we were able to have that confirmed and reconfirmed today.

As the minister knows, St. Paul's has been in and out of the news for years — consideration of whether it would move but, also, just very importantly, one of the most recent news stories, of course, being that the power blew. An old generator failed. An electrical output line connected to the hospital failed, plunging it into darkness.
[ Page 7384 ]

Of course, we know that the elevators are an ongoing concern. Those are the small pieces, of course, of a much more complex and bigger facility with incredible education opportunities, incredible research, etc., for diabetes, AIDS, heart disease, and on and on. We know that St. Paul's is a leader with great staff but substandard facilities.

We know that it won't stand up in an earthquake, and of course the ministry has had a report on its desk since 2004 which states this very clearly — that it needs urgent replacement and that some of the buildings are in extreme need of repair.

Providence has prepared a plan that was ready last fall. It was public last fall. The previous minister had said that we would look to get to the project board, get to the business case this spring. Then there was going to be a meeting in March with the former Health Minister. That got cancelled. Now we've got a new Health Minister, and I understand he's just coming up to speed on the file.

But that doesn't change anything about the fact that, of course, it's urgent and that there has been a need documented since at least 2004 yet very little work to fill that need, aside from the good work in the emergency room. But that's, again, one small piece of the wider hospital — a very important piece but a small piece.

The question to the minister would be: what's taken so long? We've known since 2004 that we've got to do this work. How many more reports or studies are needed before we actually get action for our hospital?

[1500]

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, it is, happily and characteristically, a direct question from the member, and that's fine. That's what we're here to try and deal with — direct questions and maybe, occasionally, a direct answer.

I think the short answer is the money. I'm not going to quarrel at all with the argument around the urgency for a facility that represents one of the…. It's not just older but, in a limited sense, a heritage structure.

The challenge, of course, is that in the context of two or three hours of debate, I have had a discussion with the member's colleague from North Island about a roughly $600 million project, the member's equally passionate colleague from New Westminster advocating for a billion-dollar project. Add to that a project that, according to the concept plan, I think is estimated to come in at somewhere in the neighbourhood of $600 million. Probably by the time it moves forward we'll be talking about something closer to $700 million.

So $2.5 billion in relatively short order and finding a way to manage that and balance it off, recognizing that there are — at VGH, at Children's and Women's, at Surrey Memorial, at Vernon Jubilee — literally billions of dollars in additional new construction and renovations taking place. There is an element of where do these projects fit in the queue.

I guess sometimes, if I think back on my role as an opposition MLA, as a member of this chamber and a member of the community, some of the frustration, I think, derives from: "Look, tell us where we are in the line. Then at least we'll have a better sense and try to draw some timelines around the management."

I'm sure that the member is going to have more to say, and I'll try to highlight the fact that investment at St. Paul's has not disappeared or dried up. There is a concept plan. I am interested to know, at some point during the course of this discussion, the member's general response to the concept plan and whether or not…. I think he has seen it. I think it was widely enough distributed.

It would be, I suppose, as part of this discussion, helpful to know whether there are elements of that plan that he believes are non-starters or elements of the plan that he thinks are worthy of support. I don't want to put him on the spot, but if, at a general level, he has ideas, this is as good a time as any to hear them.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes, the minister is right, of course. Money is always a challenge. Of course he's right. Not always will I say that, but in that context for sure.

Of course, my constituents will pass by B.C. Place and see, you know, the nearly comparable choice to spend approximately $563 million there, versus the choice of spending it on our local hospital. That is a choice that a government has made, and that's one question that I know does come up in the constituency now and then.

The concept plan I think is exciting. It's one that we had a town hall on, actually, in the fall, where Providence Health Care was able to come and speak about what they were planning and hoping for, taking ideas back from the Save St. Paul's Coalition, the West End Residents Association and wider community interests.

[1505]

I've got a letter here that I will be passing over to the minister just for his information. It's a letter calling on the government to proceed with the facilities redevelopment, with the St. Paul's renewal, urging significant capital dollars, as the former minister spoke about, to address the revitalization of it.

It's signed by AIDS Vancouver, A Loving Spoonful, Positive Living B.C., Coal Harbour Residents, the Dr. Peter AIDS Foundation, the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association, Friends for Life, Gordon Neighbourhood House, Health Initiative for Men, McLaren Housing, Mole Hill Community Housing, Performing Arts Lodge community, Robson Street Business Association, St. Paul's Anglican, St. Paul's Coalition, West End BIA, West End–Coal Harbour Community Policing Centre, West End Neighbours, West End Residents, West End–Coal Harbour Community Centre, the Yaletown Business Improvement Association and myself as the local MLA.
[ Page 7385 ]

There's widespread community support. That's a huge number of local organizations that represent the downtown core who are very excited about the ability to renew St. Paul's. They're more than ready to go. St. Paul's Hospital Foundation has the ability to raise a good number of dollars — I believe they've stated somewhere between $50 million and $100 million — to go towards the project. Providence Health Care is also very excited about this.

One of the reasons why it's exciting is that a new hospital there will give us the opportunity for greater efficiencies. Instead of having two places you go to, to get your blood work done, you can get it done in one location. Instead of going to multiple places for testing, you can get that done in a single location. So there are opportunities for better mental health capacity in the hospital there, opportunities for greater integration with services like the Dr. Peter Centre offers, and I think it's well past time to make this happen.

I wonder: is there money in the current budget of the Health Ministry to pay for a business case that would then go on to Treasury Board?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member has, I think, accurately described what the logical next step would be. We are in the midst…. The member saw me consulting with staff. I'm just trying to get a sense. It's the next step. It's an important step. It does cost a significant amount of money. I can't and won't pretend to stand here today and provide an undertaking that that step will be taken in the next few days or even the next few weeks.

My purpose here is not to be clever or try to trap the member — not that I expect I could — but I will ask this of the member as we have this conversation, and I asked the same question of the member's colleague from North Island.

There is, as he has undoubtedly surmised, competition for finite capital dollars. There's competition for finite operating dollars as well. He knows the government that I serve has approached these large-scale capital projects from a certain perspective, and candidly, as a minister and member of the government, I share the belief that we have maximized the benefit to taxpayers and patients by, in a number of cases, employing a particular approach to procurement.

[1510]

So whether we're talking about the ambulatory centre at VGH, Surrey Memorial, the Abbotsford Regional Hospital and Cancer Centre or Vernon Jubilee, we believe that there has been merit and draw on reports from the Auditor General and others to buttress our argument that the public-private partnership has on these larger-scale projects proven successful.

I will say candidly to the member that in advancing a particular project I suppose it would be useful to know that members representing the service area were prepared to at least consider where a case can be made, were prepared to consider that procurement approach as appropriate. Studies, of course, have to be conducted.

In some cases we have been confronted by — dare I say it? — a rather ideological opposition to that approach, but since we are exploring with one another ideas about how to move a project like this forward, I am at least interested to know what the views are of the member, as the representative for the area, with respect to the possibility, at least, of a project of this magnitude proceeding on that basis.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, the minister is very clever. He said that he wasn't trying to be clever, that he wasn't trying to entrap somebody, do something like that. He was almost successful in changing the channel so that we wouldn't talk about if there are the dollars for the business case.

The previous business case that was done by this government in its attempt to move the hospital out of the West End cost anywhere from $2 million to $3 million. My question is: is it a priority of this government, of this minister, to see a business case for this site, and will it dedicate the funds to do so?

We know that there's a vacant lot sitting which the government is covering the taxes on — a couple of million dollars so far. So the money is there. It's just a question of priorities.

Again to the minister: is he willing to go forward with a business case for St. Paul's Hospital so that we can take it to the next stage? Certainly, when I talk to constituents, they are concerned around privatization of health care and really like the good job that the staff do at St. Paul's Hospital and wouldn't want to see them lose jobs, wouldn't want to see them no longer doing that work in the community.

I would like to again restate the question: will the minister make St. Paul's a priority and put the money into the business case so that we can take it to the next stage?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the letter, and I hope he'll pass along my appreciation to the agencies that have written for their communication and their message.

Yeah, I understand the pointed interest. I'm not able to offer the direct assurance that I think the member would like to leave the debate with, because within a finite budget there are finite planning dollars and, quite frankly, establishing a priority between St. Paul's, Royal Columbia and Royal Inland is not something that has been done and I'm not proposing to do on the floor of the Legislature during this debate.

Whilst I appreciate the member's comments, I had no illusions about trying to change the subject or avoid the question.

[1515]
[ Page 7386 ]

I am genuinely interested to know to what extent there is preparedness to entertain some of these procurement options. It's the opportunity for the member to ask me questions, not the other way around, and I understand that. It is helpful to know whether or not, in individual circumstances, there is a preparedness to examine some variations in the procurement process that may or may not assist in funding the overall project and therefore potentially, I suppose, make it even that much more attractive.

I do want to assure the member of this. There is a clear understanding of the need, a clear understanding of the fact that the facility has faced some challenges. I also, though, for the benefit of those who have taken the time…. I'm always grateful for any citizen or group that takes the time to write, and perhaps they are watching these proceedings.

I don't want to leave the impression that people have thrown their hands in the air around St. Paul's and that there is no appreciation for the challenges that staff and patients are confronted with there on a daily basis.

Investments continue: $2.3 million in the cardiac services and ambulatory redesign; $4.6 million, site consolidation project; hemodialysis machines; a cardiac MIS suite for $3.3 million; emergency department renovation, which I think the member has probably seen himself, close to $15 million — a total of almost $60 million in investment. Again, it pales in comparison to the $600 million or $700 million that a full site redesign is likely to cost. Yet where I come from, and I'm sure where the member comes from, $60 million is still a significant chunk of money.

Those investments continue. There is obviously a much larger project looming.

M. Sather: I have a constituent that I wanted to talk to the minister about. He's been to my office a number of times to talk to me about a health issue he has. He has a rather severe chronic condition that requires him to get weekly massage therapy treatments. On a yearly basis he's paying $998.40 HST on his massage therapy.

Even if the Premier rolls the HST back a couple of percent — which, given her variable responses to the HST, I don't think can be taken to the bank — by my calculations he would still owe $838.76. I wanted to ask the minister if he felt that it was acceptable that British Columbians like my constituent have to pay that amount of money in HST to get a very needed health service.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. There is an awareness of an inquiry having been made. I must confess that I'm at a bit of a disadvantage to refer specifically to the case the member has raised.

[1520]

Based on the numbers, if I rely upon the numbers the member has provided and can extrapolate, I guess we're talking about someone who is accessing massage therapy treatment to the tune of $8,000 or $9,000 over the course of the year, which is in and of itself a significant amount. Of course, even under the regime that would have been in place previously, he would have been responsible for just about half that amount under the GST. I suppose it's that remaining amount of money that we are talking about. I'm not really in a position in the course of this debate to make specific comments about this specific case.

The member has heard at length the government's rationale for both the HST and more recently, as recent as today, some changes that are being proposed to the HST that in our view would lessen the burden significantly felt by families — in fact, under the analysis that has been conducted by independent bodies, lead to a situation in which virtually every family finds themselves ultimately better off.

I understand that that is a position that the member and his party take issue with. We can have that discussion here, but it…. Well, we can have that discussion here, or we can, I'm sure, have the discussion in a different forum, and one will present itself shortly.

M. Sather: Yeah, that's fine. It sounds like we are going to have another forum to discuss the HST further, so I'll leave that and move on to ask the minister some questions about Ridge Meadows Hospital.

In 11 Lower Mainland hospitals less than 55 percent of patients admitted to hospital get a bed within ten hours. In Ridge Meadows it's only 35 percent of patients who get a bed within ten hours. I wanted to ask the minister why the admission rate for getting a bed is so low at Ridge Meadows Hospital.

Hon. M. de Jong: Could the member repeat the numbers? I want to make sure we're comparing apples to apples here.

M. Sather: By all means. The information I have is that in 11 Lower Mainland hospitals less than 55 percent of patients admitted to hospital get a bed within ten hours. Ridge Meadows, I think, is on the lower end of that with only 35 percent getting a bed within ten hours of being admitted to hospital. I wanted to ask the minister why it seems to be so difficult to get a bed at Ridge Meadows Hospital.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think he is referring to some targets that have been set. We are, as we speak, trying to confirm the numbers that he has presented, and then we'll move on to a discussion about them.

[1525]

The objective, of course, is to get every patient a bed assigned within ten hours. We haven't obviously realized that objective yet but are making progress. If the
[ Page 7387 ]
member can bear with me for a couple of minutes, we'll see if we can get the data and an explanation for that as it relates to Ridge Meadows Hospital.

M. Sather: Well, according to Fraser Health public affairs director David Plug, the problem, in part at least, is that there are so many seniors and acutely ill occupying beds in Maple Ridge.

I wanted to ask a specific question, which I asked Fraser Health, and that was: what are the minimum and maximum times for a senior in Ridge Meadows Hospital waiting for placement in a residential care facility? Part of the problem here is that we have a lot of seniors that should be in residential care.

Now, the information I got from Fraser Health…. They gave me the minimum time, but I didn't get any maximum. What is the range, then? How long are seniors having to wait at Ridge Meadows Hospital to get into a residential care facility?

Hon. M. de Jong: I just want to confirm with the member. I think his question relates to that issue we hear about from time to time and one that has been a significant issue. It seems to be diminishing somewhat. It's the notion of bed-blockers — seniors that are in an acute care facility when where they actually need to be is in supportive housing.

We've got the data for Fraser Health, but I think the member has received that. What I'm going to try and get is something more particular to Ridge Meadows. I don't have it at my fingertips. The officials you see are endeavouring to get it. If the member is agreeable, we'll try to track down something that is a little more particular to Ridge Meadows, because all we'll have at our fingertips right now are Fraser Health Authority numbers.

M. Sather: Another constituent told me something recently that really astounded me. He said he'd been admitted to hospital at Ridge Meadows with a broken bone — I seem to recall it was an ankle — and he didn't get it set for four days. I was astounded at that, but I've since learned that this does happen more frequently than we would like. I think that must be unacceptable to the minister. What's he doing to ensure that my constituents, and other residents in the province, don't have to wait four days to get a broken bone set?

Hon. M. de Jong: Just to back up for a moment. This is a very general number, but I should remind the member that ten years ago the median wait time for access to residential care was up to just about a year. Today the median wait time is about 90 days.

[1530]

Now, that can still pose challenges in individual facilities, but it is much improved from where it was.

The member's next question relates to, again, an individual constituent and both diagnosis and treatment. Of course, we do on occasion hear stories about patients who receive their treatment in a timely…. Well, actually we don't hear about the 98 percent that receive their treatment in a very timely way. We tend to hear about examples where it has taken longer than many of us would think reasonable.

What do we do about that? Well, we try to train more professionals. We are training over twice as many more physicians in British Columbia today than was the case ten years ago. We try to train more nurses, more health care technicians. We try to ensure that there are more professionals on site, available to treat our citizens.

We try to make sure the facilities are there that can accommodate people as they come in the door when they submit to injury or illness, all of it complicated by the fact that as our population grows older, more and more people are seeking access to medical treatment, to health care treatment. So it would be disingenuous of me to suggest there is that one thing that you can do to guarantee that no person ever again is obliged to wait longer than most people in this chamber and most citizens would think reasonable.

I will say this. On balance, I think very positive progress has been made. But that doesn't mean that there isn't more work to be done, and that doesn't mean that the demand on the professionals that we in society rely upon day in, day out to attend to our health care needs won't continue to grow.

H. Bains: My questions…. I think my colleague from Surrey-Fleetwood asked a few of those questions. I just want to expand on those questions.

It's the expansion of the facilities at Surrey Memorial Hospital. The physical space is one thing. I understand that the ambulatory unit is opening in June sometime. The expansion of the emergency ward — that project is delayed until 2014. If this is still the date, the minister can correct me on that.

I think the question that followed from the member from Maple Ridge is the same, and I think the minister tried to answer some of that question — some of the issues that it's brought up and why that is the case. In Surrey Memorial Hospital, being there on numerous cases, you hear….

First of all, the emergency room itself. I was given a tour just the other day by one of the professionals, and they talk about how in Royal Columbian Hospital…. Physically you're in Tim Hortons, but come and take a look here. So yes, you know, in every hallway leading from the emergency ward all the way up to the restaurant there were patients, in some cases, on both sides of the hallway.

They were complaining that they don't have the facilities where they could call for help if they need their
[ Page 7388 ]
personal needs addressed, and I think that those are some of the things…. They have to wait for somebody to come and physically show up there, because they don't have those emergency buttons that they can do. There are no oxygen links in that area.

[1535]

That's a physical space limitation issue, and the date is what the date is. I think the other part that emanates from there is that even once you are admitted, the issue, as was mentioned by the member from Maple Ridge, is that the health care professionals are not there. They're ready for surgery. Sometimes they actually put you through fasting to prepare you for the surgery, but a nurse is not there, an anaesthesiologist is not there, or some other member of the team is not there, so it is postponed again.

I was talking to someone yesterday — same situation. A nurse wasn't there that was needed to perform the surgery, to help with it. So it's postponed. Those are the issues.

The other question that comes out of that is — and the minister tried to answer in the previous question: what about the staffing? What are we doing to increase the staffing? I mean, even if you are expanding the facilities, how are you going to deal with that particular issue?

One is training more professionals here, but have you looked at utilizing or helping those who are already here with some qualifications? They may need some upgrading. They may need some help in dealing with the issue, which is foreign-trained professionals. Many of them are actually Canadian-born kids studying outside. They're coming back. They're doctors, but they are having huge difficulty coming back into the system to use their skills.

Ontario and Manitoba have brought in some legislation to deal with that issue, although it covers the entire professional organizations. But on health care alone, I just want to ask the minister: is there any attempt being made to help those who already have those credentials? They could be Canadian kids who left the country and are coming back here. How do we help them and assist them to get back into the system so that we do have those professionals when we need them?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, we touched on this briefly yesterday, but I think it's a very important and interesting component of the health care equation. You can separate it out into a couple of different compartments, if you will.

First of all, in general, the realization that we need more health care professionals — physicians, nurses and technicians, the physiotherapists, the respiratory therapists; all of these folks, the whole suite of professionals that, for lay people like most of us, we tend to categorize as a doctor or a nurse. There's this whole suite of professionals that make up the team of professionals that we rely upon.

Training more of them — well, we're doing that. In the case of physicians, of course, it takes upwards of eight or nine years from the time they enter university to when they graduate, complete their internships and are actively serving patients on a full-time basis — in an emergency ward, for example.

There is that domestic aspect to this, but also how we utilize the people that are trained. The member will know, I think, that there are challenges arising as we develop new categories within the conventional designations. We have nurse practitioners now. They are, if you will, registered nurses with a significantly enhanced level of training.

Are we utilizing nurse practitioners to the degree that I think, ultimately, we should? I don't think so. Some of that, by the way, is the responsibility of government, some of it is the responsibility of the health authorities, and some of it, quite frankly, is attributable to some resistance within the traditional professional fields to change — a little bit of concern around turf.

[1540]

Licensed practical nurses and the opportunities that they have, with correct training and appropriate training, to fill in, in areas that historically registered nurses…. I mean, these are specialized areas within which there is debate on the part of those. By the way, this is not unique to medicine. You can have an interesting discussion between lawyers and notaries on matters relating to professional behaviour and scope of practice. That's an area that I think requires ongoing attention and work.

Then the area that the member has referred to, this phenomenon where we have people…. Some of them are foreign nationals who choose to come to Canada with training, and some are Canadians who have gone abroad, received training and come back here. We still have some impediments, in my view, to capitalizing on those skill sets as quickly as we should.

Now, I think we're getting better. Yesterday we discussed the fact that in our foreign credentialing for physicians, we've tripled and gone from six to 18. Those are still pretty modest numbers.

I think the member also knows that for whatever reason, I have a particular interest in this not just as it relates to health care but on an economic basis. We tend to think of some of these countries…. The member, I think, traces his ancestry back to India. We have this preconceived notion of countries that formerly fit into the Third World categorization. That is not the case today.

You go to India, and you see these…. I toured a facility, the Apollo Hospitals chain. It's incredible, with skilled personnel. There is a lingering element of arrogance on our part to suggest that someone who has received training in some of these centres isn't qualified to come here. Yet we are cautious because we feel this
[ Page 7389 ]
obligation to say to fellow citizens: "Fear not. We have standards, and we are ensuring that they are being…." It becomes very bureaucratic.

It's a combination of government and of governing bodies in the professions themselves breaking through that in a balanced and responsible way, preserving our ability to say to citizens: "We are capitalizing on that international skill set, but we are also doing so in a way that ensures you are being treated by someone who is qualified to provide that treatment." That's the challenge. As I say, we're making progress, but I think there's more we can do.

H. Bains: I think there are a couple of areas in there. I think Manitoba, as I mentioned, and Ontario…. I understand the protection of their jurisdictions. All of the professional organizations have their own in-house bylaws on how to govern themselves. I understand that, but I think to overcome some of that, Ontario and Manitoba, as the minister probably knows, have come down with legislation.

You know, they appointed a fairness commissioner, whose role is to make sure that when changes are made, they are in line with the government direction that the government wants to see in all of those professional organizations. We're zeroing in here or talking about the health care side only. If the minister had a look at that model…. There is something where the government's leadership is needed to make those changes, to bring them to the table and say: "Look, we need to utilize these skills that are already here."

There are two components; I agree with the minister. We have professionals who were trained in countries previously called Third World. But there are Canadian children who were born, raised and educated here — UBC and other graduates — who couldn't get into the medical school here because of limited seats. So they've gone over to England, to Ireland or to other places — countries that we previously depended on for professionals. Now we're not even allowing them to come back and enter into our system.

[1545]

The other part that perhaps the minister and the staff can clarify is: how is it that a special arrangement was made with the doctors from South Africa who could come in and practise here in B.C. without going through those same impediments, as the minister has said, as those who were trained in England or Ireland or even some of the other European countries? How does that work? If the minister could explain that — why there are two different approaches to it.

Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, I'm always gratified to receive information that we can follow up on, and I will, with respect to the approach that he has described out of Ontario and Manitoba.

I can do two things. I can alert the member to the fact that based on the approach in place at the moment, we believe that within a few years there will be upwards of 134 international medical graduates in training at any given time in B.C., which represents a fairly significant expansion. I want to assure the member that he will encounter no philosophical quarrel from me about finding the most efficient and appropriate ways to recognize credentialing to facilitate the flow of internationally trained medical graduates.

I will ask this, though. And it is not, again, to turn what I am finding to be a very useful and enlightening conversation into something else. But we also try to facilitate the flow of professionals within the country. So when the member talks about legislating…. In fact, the government did that with TILMA. It signed an agreement that was dedicated, in part, to facilitating the freer flow of professions within the country. Now, is there the potential for flaws and issues? But that is the underlying principle.

So I would suggest this. I would only say this to the member. I in no way quarrel with the proposition that says: let us find ways to facilitate the entry and full participation of internationally trained medical personnel.

But I apply that same standard and that same philosophy to facilitating the entry of Canadians who may receive training elsewhere in a range of professions. We're talking about health care here, and I understand that. But I apply a similar approach and attach similar importance when it comes to removing some of those domestic hurdles that continue to linger in our country.

[1550]

H. Bains: I think I also asked a question about the difference between the South African doctors coming in and practising here compared to, say, doctors coming from England or from Ireland. Why is there a different approach to it?

The other part I may want to mention to the minister is that you do need a national strategy on this issue — you know, like we had a Red Seal approach for the apprenticeships. Those are the types of things where we could show some leadership, when the ministers from all the provinces and the federal government sit down and come up with a strategy.

I'll leave that for another day. Our Health critic probably will follow that one as well, but I just want to talk about the different approach given to professionals trained in different countries, and South Africa is one of the examples that I used.

Hon. M. de Jong: I didn't mean to divert us off into another realm of argument.

I can't say this for certain, but I can advise the member that the national College of Family Physicians, for
[ Page 7390 ]
example, recognizes a current system of certification as equivalent to Canada's in a number of medical schools in the United States, in the U.K., in Ireland, in Australia. Actually, I think that in large measure that represents the most efficient way of doing this.

What I don't have on my list, by the way, is South Africa, but my expectation is that something similar exists there, because there has been quite an influx of physicians from South Africa.

At the end of the day, having agreements in place that recognize the credentials of the program itself and, therefore, those who graduate from those programs is probably the best way I can think of to facilitate the entry of an internationally trained student. With a certified program, we are saying in advance that if you attend this school and if you graduate from this program, you are qualified and your credentials are recognized as being comparable. That strikes me as an eminently sensible way to approach this.

M. Farnworth: I thought I may as well enter the debate at this particular point, because this was a topic that I had intended to address later. My colleague has raised it and raised some interesting points, and the minister has responded. I would like to carry this a little bit further so that we don't have to come back to it later on.

The minister and my colleague have raised, I think, some really important points. One is the issue of foreign credentialing and the process we go through in this province, and I agree that there are some real challenges.

The minister made some comments about the ability within the country to practise, and I think that absolutely that is a real issue. If you're trained in Ontario, you should be able to practise in British Columbia. If you're trained in British Columbia, you should be able to practise in Ontario. The last time I checked, the arm bone connected to the wrist bone is still the same in this province as it is in any other province. Blood still circulates through arteries and veins, and it doesn't change. How you do a kidney transplant is no different in British Columbia than it is in Ontario.

I think there are a lot of things that do need to change. Here's where I take not issue, but where I want to go with the minister and just explore a little bit, because I think it's important. One is the issue of a national strategy in terms of…. It's one thing for a province to work with another province to say okay, and I'll use TILMA as an example, on medical professionals. I actually think we need to have a national strategy that recognizes the importance of health professionals right across the country and a national strategy in terms of training physicians and health care professionals not just in British Columbia but in Ontario and all the other provinces.

[1555]

My question is: is the ministry or minister engaged in those discussions with provincial and federal ministers to move to that type of system? We're not talking about doing a deal with one particular province, but we're actually trying to get a national agreement on the ability to work right across the country if you're a physician or you're a nurse.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. M. de Jong: Really, two tracks — the question relating to the level of national engagement. It exists in two ways, I am learning and discovering. On the professional level — and the hon. member may recall this from his days in this particular seat — the individual colleges from the provinces staff the accreditation committee of Canadian medical schools. That's the professional body that makes decisions around the means by which recognition is going to be granted.

I think the member's question related to the second track, which is at the political level. I am advised that there have been ongoing discussions at the deputies level about the extent to which we can improve the recruitment of international health personnel. I am also reminded that it is a topic for discussion at the upcoming federal-provincial Health Ministers meetings, which are scheduled for the end of the summer.

I could go on and pretend to know more about the status of those discussions than I do. I won't do that, except to say that it is an area that I am keenly interested in and, as I am reminded by the deputy, an ongoing phenomenon that frustrates the heck out of people who can't understand why folks who seemingly have the talent are not allowed to put that talent to work.

[1600]

I will say this, though. It doesn't take very much for the pendulum to swing in the other direction when an allegation is made about a health official, be it a technician or someone else who has received training, who's then accused of not having met a certain standard set in Canada. The public becomes justifiably concerned about that as well. So it's a problem that most people would conclude has a logical and seemingly straightforward solution but, as we discovered time and time again, is filled with complexities.

M. Farnworth: I want to stick with this a little bit because it has been — what? — 12 years since I sat in that seat — a long time ago, and much of that time you forget. But there are certain things that do stick in your mind, issues that you remember, and this is one of them.

I remember being Health Minister and meeting with the College of Physicians and Surgeons and others and going through these very same questions and being told that if you're from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand or South Africa before the change,
[ Page 7391 ]
it's real simple to practise medicine here in British Columbia. But if you're from France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Scandinavia or anywhere else, it's very, very difficult, even though…. And it struck me back then that that was a rather archaic, to be charitable, way of viewing the world and the way it's changed and skills and training.

What strikes me is that I'm not sure that we've moved that far in the 12 years in terms of expanding the recognition — you know? India is no longer the Third World country that's…. Quite often there was an arrogance and a paternalism that I think was applied to…. Their doctors are now trained just as highly as they are in our own country. So that is one issue, the issue of recognizing foreign credentials, and I think it's an important one that we have to do.

I do think the minister is right in that it doesn't take much to swing the pendulum. But I do think there are unnecessary hurdles and red tape put in the way of us being able to take advantage of the use of the talent that is coming to this country through immigration, which the federal government is encouraging and we as a province are encouraging because we benefit from that. There's tremendous economic and social benefit from that.

I am pleased to see the increase in the number of spaces that…. People will be able to access credentials. That's one aspect, and I know that's going to be ongoing for quite some time.

But the other aspect is within our own country and people who were born here and trained here, in British Columbia and in Ontario. It's the same country. We speak basically…. You work in either English or in French, by and large. The textbooks aren't that different — right? You're trained. So the idea that you are from Ontario and can't practise in British Columbia — or the difficulties — is something that I think we need to address, and that's why I talk about the issue of a national strategy.

I'm glad to see that it's being addressed at the deputy level and, the minister says, at the ministerial level. I just hope that we are further along now than we were 12 years ago. Somehow I have a feeling that we're still talking about it when what we need to be doing is making some real, concrete changes.

Within that, I think there is another issue that we have a responsibility to do — and that's why I feel strongly about the issue of a national strategy — and that is…. There's an ethical question. We are too often, I feel, encouraging…. Well, the best way to put it is we strip-mine countries sometimes of their best and brightest health care professionals, countries that can't afford to lose their talents. It sometimes has been easier to bring them here to Canada as opposed to training our own. I think that's an issue that needs to be addressed at the national level.

That's why I raise the issue around national strategies in terms of training the health care professionals that we need, ensuring, of course, that immigration will continue to play a part in that, but also being mindful that sometimes we've made it…. We take health care professionals from countries that invested an awful lot of money in training their own to provide services and the brain talent that they need to develop, and we're too quick to take them, to poach them.

[1605]

I think there's a real question when we, a nation as wealthy with the people and resources that we have, do that. I think that's something that needs to be addressed by the provinces and the federal government in terms of a health-care human resource strategy in this.

I don't necessarily expect an answer from the minister on that. I think it's a question that really I find particularly…. I think it's one that we have to address, because there's a real issue there that in many cases has been ignored. It's too tempting sometimes in communities that can't get health care professionals to say, "Oh, we can bring someone from somewhere else" — from a place that needs just as much as we do, and they don't have the ability to train their own and we do. I think that's something we need to address.

So that little not rant but sort of venting of a frustration that I see within our system aside, one of the questions that I've got for the minister on the issue of credentials and the mobility of health care professionals is: has the minister had meetings with the professional bodies since he's become minister — it may be a little soon — in order to push this issue and get a sense of where they feel change can or can't be made? Or has he encountered…? Is there a resistance to broadening the scope or the ability and ease of movement within the country and the credentialing of people from outside the country?

Hon. M. de Jong: The discussions…. Well, let me back up because I thought that the remarks that the hon. member made a few moments ago were relevant and important.

Raising the ethical question in the way that the member did is, I think, appropriate. I think we do have to be cognizant of the fact that as other nations develop and acquire expertise, our role is not to roll in and simply relieve them of that developing talent. We have the wealth, and if we have the will, we should be able to train the majority of those people that we need here.

[1610]

I will say this. The government is proud of the fact that we now have an expanded medical school presence. We train just in excess of twice as many doctors today as we did. It's expensive — medical schools, by definition — but the fact that we are doing so and that we are doing so, for example, in Prince George, soon in the Okanagan, in Victoria…. Of course, the added advantage of training in a place like Prince George is that the ability to attract physicians to stay in those communities and surrounding areas is enhanced.
[ Page 7392 ]

I'm just now reminded of the in excess of $105 million spent on postgraduate medical education as well.

The national component to this is important, and that work has been ongoing. It exists in the context of physicians, but I mentioned, for example, TILMA and the work that has taken place between Alberta and British Columbia around nurse practitioners and licensed practical nurses.

What we have begun to see is that when all of the jurisdictions are sitting around the table at times and trying to find the magical solution to make this happen all at once, that head-butting goes on and on and on. Our experience with TILMA has been, quite frankly, that we did it with our neighbour jurisdiction, and now other provinces are signing on and saying: "We want a part of that."

So in many ways we have led, and other provinces…. There's an element of: "See? That didn't hurt." Yeah, it's technical. Yes, it can be challenging. But part of what we did with TILMA was to say to the rest of the country: "We are not going to wait for everyone to decide this is the right thing to do."

To paraphrase what the hon. member has said, we are a country. We are this huge country with a relatively small population, and we cannot afford to duplicate all of these processes in every single provincial jurisdiction. It doesn't work. It's too expensive.

So the assurance I can give the member is that the passion he has expressed for seeing this elevated to the national stage as a priority is one that I share, and I hope, as the present occupant of this office, to be able to give expression to that passion and interest both in advance of and during the discussions that will take place when the provincial ministers and the federal minister get together. I'm hopeful, as well, to have an opportunity to speak with the newly reappointed federal minister in due course.

The member also asked about conversations with some of the professional groups here in British Columbia. I've had an opportunity to make an initial acquaintance with the B.C. Medical Association, the B.C. Nurses Union, the health sciences professionals. That's why I'm working my way through the menu of various boards, colleges and commissions.

I have to say that without exception I have been impressed by the willingness on the part of those representative bodies to engage in a discussion around how we can all work together to try and do this better for the citizens. That's a good place to start.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for his response.

I raise it in the sense that…. The health care system and the challenges that we face — one of the key components of that is around human resources, and it's not just doctors and nurses. It's the people who run…. It's the health care professionals that run your MRI and your CT scans and do the tests and diagnostics and all those things.

One of the things that has struck me in our effort to ensure that we've got the right number of people in the right places to do the work that's required and to provide the services that are required is that it's a combination of training our own and of people coming in from outside the country.

[1615]

I'm glad the minister recognized the ethical question. I mean, India is one thing. But in other places, there's much smaller…. I think it's a much different story.

It's also where we get into a game ourselves, as provinces, where we end up poaching from other provinces. We raise benefits in this province to make it more attractive. Then other provinces do the same thing. I think that's something that we need to be mindful of.

Again, to me, what it comes back to is that health care is a provincial jurisdiction, but many of the challenges that we need I think require much more of a national approach than we have seen to date. Particularly on the human resource side of the equation, I think that that's crucial.

I'd be interested, when the minister has his meetings, in hearing how they go and how that issue plays itself out, because I think it's an important one. It's an important practical — but also, I think, philosophical — issue that needs to be dealt with in the health care system.

The minister indicated he's just meeting with officials from…. Again, I'm not expecting him to have all the answers, and he's getting a sense of where issues are going. But when it comes to…. We've talked about physicians.

What has been his reaction from meeting with, for example, nurses and looking at issues around expanding the scope of practice? What room does he see for initiatives and improvements in that area? Is the ministry undertaking any particular initiatives in terms of dealing with some of those issues around expanding the scope of practice amongst the different health care professions, and can he give me the status of any initiatives that are under way?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, this, too, is an important part of the puzzle that is the delivery of health care. I think the member has asked for examples of situations in which these kinds of discussions are taking place. I have alluded a few moments ago to one example, and that is the advent and introduction over the last couple of years of nurse practitioners.

I will say that my initial observation is that there have been some growing pains associated with properly and fully utilizing nurse practitioners. We are fully engaged in discussions now, sitting down in a very candid way with the parties. The essence of the position of
[ Page 7393 ]
the government is that we established this enhanced level of training and this program for a reason, and we'd like to see these professionals put those enhanced skills to work.

[1620]

The member will know that recently there has been some discussion and debate around the use of licensed practical nurses and their ability, capacity, to participate, to provide immunization. There's another example of a discussion within the family of nurses about how we can fully utilize folks who have received a certain measure of training. One actually presented itself in a public way on the weekend — opticians and optometrists.

So as technology evolves and we say, "All right, how do we safely and responsibly employ that technology? Which are the professionals that are capable of doing so, and quite frankly, how do we maximize the fiscal benefit to the citizen, the people that are paying the bills…?"

Pushing up against that is the concern and potential criticism from a professional body that says: "Well, I'm concerned (a) about the safety of the patient, but (b) what are the fiscal consequences for me as a professional when guidelines are amended or changed to allow someone else to participate in a way that historically hasn't been the case?"

We have — and I suspect this has not changed in the intervening 12 years — tables in place that are designed to bring people together to have those discussions. Sometimes they result in a compromise that all of the parties can agree upon, and sometimes they result in an agreement to disagree and a requirement for the government or the minister or the cabinet to make a decision and say: "Well, this is the decision as it relates to this scope-of-practice issue."

The first scenario is preferable; the second is often required. But those are three examples of where that debate is ongoing. What I have tried to communicate to the various groups with which I have met is that the instructions to our senior officials are that the government wishes them to be fully engaged, to participate in good faith in the discussion and, to the extent the government may have a predisposition or a position, to lay it clearly before the parties so that they have an opportunity to respond candidly.

I hope that helps somewhat.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for his response. At this time I'd like to move on to seniors issues. I'll come back with some final questions on that. I know we've got some more time, but I have committed to my colleague that we would spend a good bulk of the afternoon on dealing with seniors health care and long-term health care, so I will turn it over to her right now. She has some thoughts and comments that she'd like to make.

K. Conroy: I want to thank the minister and his staff for the opportunity this afternoon, and I also want to acknowledge the staff out in the hinterlands that help all of us in our constituency offices with so many issues and help us to resolve issues. So I'd like to thank them.

I'm going to take a few hours to go over the big pictures of seniors issues — including residential care wait-lists, funding the long-term-care rates, licensing, regulation and enforcement, hours of care, retention and recruitment of staff, home support and hospice, just to name a few of them. We'll see what we get through.

Then other colleagues want to ask questions. It will be later in the day, except for our colleague from Delta South, who would like to ask some questions right now, so I'm going to turn it over to her.

V. Huntington: I thank the critic for seniors for giving me this opportunity, because I know she has a great deal on her plate this afternoon.

[1625]

I've had a number of questions here related to facilities and the issues that they're experiencing in their relationship with Fraser Health, and I suspect it's more or less a general relationship throughout the province. I won't be able to ask all of them, but I thought one was particularly interesting given the earlier conversation between the minister and his critic with regard to the foundation. As you said, the foundation has been laid for pan-Canadian purchasing opportunities, and it probably would be worthwhile exploring those.

The same situation exists provincially, and what I have learned is that a number of the extended care facilities, private and non-profit, are not able to access the systems within, I'll say, Fraser Health, because that's what I know of, but it could be everywhere. Their feeling is that they're called partners but are not treated as partners within the system.

One of the issues that arose was the lack of access to the purchasing group. They felt that the whole system would be relieved of a fairly significant financial burden if they also could access the provincial health purchasing group. I'm not sure what the name is. Similarly, they found they don't have access to intranet. I don't know whether that's an issue that has another implication to it, but for whatever reason they were disappointed that they couldn't access. Nor do they have access to the maintenance authority group within Fraser Health.

All of those issues would enable them to reduce their costs substantially and relieve the pressure on Fraser Health to continually look at raising the care rates. I wonder if the minister could advise the House whether he would take a look at those issues on behalf of the extended care facilities and perhaps at least look at where they could share the opportunities to maximize benefits.
[ Page 7394 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for Delta South for her participation in the discussion today. I want to make sure I understand the question because I'm intrigued by it. I want to make sure that as we do what we do over here that we're pursuing it from the right perspective.

What I think the member is alerting me to is the fact that there are seniors care facilities that are run by non-profit societies or privately owned and that provide care to seniors but that the joint purchasing and procurement processes we've set up within, for example, Fraser Health, presumably to purchase bulk and achieve savings as a result…. The member is saying they are precluded from participating in that process.

She will appreciate that all of what she said interests me. When she got to the part about reducing costs, I became particularly interested. If that's, in essence, the nature of the question, I'm going to see what I can ascertain right now, but the short answer is that I'm very interested. If there is a way for us to partner and achieve savings on the part of the folks we call partners in the delivery of seniors care, then we should be doing what we can.

Let me see what the status is, and I'll get back to the member in a moment.

[1630]

I have heard nothing to dissuade me from the position I just articulated. It's something we should pursue, and I have a suggestion for how we might want to pursue it in a way that is manageable, measurable and might actually see us achieve something.

The member doesn't have to do this in here, in the chamber. But if she would like to provide the name of an organization that fits the bill, and I'm sure she has a couple in mind — if she wants to do it in here; it's fine, too, if she wants to provide it to me by another means — and let's use that as an example.

I will say this. The notion of taking the order through the joint purchasing agency is something that makes a lot of sense to me. The one caveat I would attach is this. I don't think there is the capacity or the desire to acquire additional administrative responsibilities for managing the purchasing process. So if this is purely a case of needing X supply of linen and we can capitalize on the reduced costs that come from the joint purchasing agency, I think we should pursue that. If the member wants to provide an example of an organization that is prepared to work and help us realize that objective, I'm interested to know it.

V. Huntington: I have a lot of organizations that will be very pleased with that response. I don't know if there's a specific central organization I can refer to the minister, but certainly, it's every extended health facility in my riding. I have recently met with them all as a group, and that was one issue that was raised.

Similarly, if the minister would take under consideration allowing them, perhaps after discussion with them, access to the health authority's maintenance division, again, it would be an ability to lower costs.

One of the other issues is access to the health authority systems. Similarly, I was told that they have no access to the policies and procedures upon which their licences are judged, and it would be of great benefit if they could access those too.

Now, if the minister would consider taking those under consideration or discussing them further with me or other organizations, I'd appreciate that, and I can go on to another question.

Hon. M. de Jong: Can I ask the member, just with respect to the development of applicable policy: is there an example? I do know, and have had it reaffirmed for me, that there is actually access to the policy manual and a measure of access in the developmental stages, but maybe there is a specific example that the member can point to where organizations within her constituency have expressed frustration at how a particular policy has emerged or perhaps taken them by surprise.

V. Huntington: I'm sorry. I can't be more specific with the minister, but I can certainly find out. The comments made to me are that the system will not share policy and procedures and that while they're judged on licensing requirements and guidelines, they have no access to procedural requirements. Now, I can't go further than that, but I will be glad to find the information out for the minister.

My other question, among many, has to do with taxation of these care facilities. It's very inconsistent.

[1635]

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, I just want to make sure that we have properly understood. The frustration seems to be that facilities are subject to inspection, which is an important component of our desire and our objective of delivering a quality of care to citizens and patients, and there is frustration that policies and procedures are being applied which some of these organizations say they are prevented from seeing. The member is indicating that that's the case.

The note I have indicates that all of the health authorities have adopted the long-term care standards from Accreditation Canada. What I suppose we should endeavour to ascertain is whether or not the health authorities apply additional regulatory requirements or policy requirements.

I will say this. If you're going to ask people and organizations to adhere to a certain standard or policy, it's important that they know what that standard or policy is. To the extent that there seems to be a breakdown between the policy and people knowing what the policy is,
[ Page 7395 ]
again, I have discovered over the years that one of the best ways to try and resolve this is to have a specific example, which the member may be able to provide. If we address that, we may find that we are solving or eliminating a broader problem that may or may not exist.

V. Huntington: I'll certainly provide that to you, and if I can't, I will apologize to you. One of the indications that I was given was that there is an inconsistent application of the licensing guidelines. That causes problems, too, but I'll provide some specifics on that.

The other issue that I'd like to just comment on, on behalf of these facilities, is the issue of taxation. The hospitals and health authority facilities do not pay HST, for instance, and most of the non-profit providers are rebated, but the private providers have to pay the HST. There is an inconsistency immediately at that rate. The issue was whether at any point there could be an exemption for the private providers considered.

Secondly, there's the issue of property tax, which is applied inconsistently throughout the province. Non-profits are usually tax-exempt. The private providers pay the property taxes, yet some municipalities and cities — for instance, Surrey — exempt private providers from their property tax, along with the non-profits. There's a very inconsistent and unlevel playing field there, which is an expensive one, as you can imagine, for the private providers. I wondered if you had any comment or interest in that issue.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think we'll deal with the second question first, and we'll get back to the other one. I can appreciate that if a private care facility is located in a jurisdiction that has chosen not to provide the kinds of exemptions the member has alluded to, they will feel aggrieved and disadvantaged.

[1640]

The potential solution…. In fairness, I'm not sure that the member has called for this. I think she asked for my thoughts as opposed to suggesting a particular course of action.

A potential response, I suppose, would be for the Crown — and the right of the province — to legislate away those discrepancies and those inconsistencies. But that would represent a fairly significant intrusion into the jurisdiction of local government. I am certain about what the reaction would be from organizations like the UBCM and local government were the provincial government to do that.

The member has raised a point about the inconsistencies and discrepancies. All I can tell the member at this point is that I haven't, and I don't believe the government has, contemplated, to this point at least, stepping in statutorily to remove that inconsistency. But I'm certain it is an aggravating fact, especially in a situation, as the member describes, where an operator may exist on one side of a provincial boundary and be, in a sense, competing with someone that is paying a significantly different property tax rate.

I'll need a moment, though, to consider my response to the member's first question. The first question related to the application of the HST as it relates to for-profits and the comparison with non-profits. I can't remember if the member was here for a previous comment.

Unless the member or another member wishes to, I'm not proposing as a part of this discussion to embark on a wholesale discussion around the HST, because there will be other opportunities. I accept that there is a difference of opinion between the members of the government and the members of the opposition, and this member will undoubtedly have her own views on it.

What I can tell the member, though, for the purpose of this discussion, is that in February of 2010, I am advised, the Ministry of Health directed the health authorities to keep their contracted, for-profit residential care providers whole with respect to the HST. There was funding provided for that purpose. So that is the expectation on the part of the ministry.

If a circumstance has arisen where that has not occurred, then I am interested to hear about it. Again, I won't necessarily ask the member to disclose that example during the course of these proceedings, but if she wishes to do so…. The ministry is operating on the basis of the instructions that were provided to the health authorities in February of last year to keep those agencies whole with respect to the HST.

V. Huntington: Thank you. I will follow up and make sure that the advice I've been given is accurate. If the minister wouldn't mind, I would perhaps like an opportunity to make an appointment with his office to discuss these and several other issues that I don't have time to raise at the moment. But I thank him for his answers, and I appreciate it.

I make way for the member for Kootenay West.

[1645]

K. Conroy: The minister will be relieved. In all my information, the questions, I'm not going to talk about the HST. We'll stick to seniors' issues, not that.

There continues to be a growing number of seniors in British Columbia that do or will require residential care. The following questions are specific to the province's ability to deal with this issue. I was wondering: how many seniors are currently in residential care in the province today?

Hon. M. de Jong: I thank the member for her participation in the discussion. I am advised that there are just under 26,500 beds available, and we operate on the supposition that they are generally all full. So in terms of the number in care, we would start with that minimum number.
[ Page 7396 ]

K. Conroy: How many seniors are currently awaiting placement in residential care? I'm referring to the alternative levels of care patients, the ALC or the ALCPs — the alphabet soup of seniors' care in the health system.

[1650]

Hon. M. de Jong: Apologies to the member, but I tried to get info that she understands and, hopefully, I understand. Here's what I can give the member just at the moment. This will go back to fiscal year '09-10, and it tells me this.

In the first quarter of that year there were 2,245 individuals awaiting placement; 65 percent of those were placed within 30 days. In the second quarter of that year the number waiting was 1,982; 60 percent of those were placed within 30 days. In quarter three of that year there were 2,091 patients waiting; 55 percent of those were placed within 30 days. In the fourth quarter of '09-10 there were 2,571 patients waiting, and 60 percent of those were placed within 30 days.

Hopefully, that gives a sense over the course of that year of the number of people. Of course, the individuals change. The number changed a little bit but tended to be in the neighbourhood of 2,000 or 2,200.

K. Conroy: So there's an average in '09-10 of around 40 percent of people who weren't receiving care within the first 30 days. Does part of those numbers carry on throughout the quarters, and do you have a time frame for how long it took those people to receive care? If 65 percent, for instance, received it in 30 days, that means 35 percent didn't, and it goes on.

Hon. M. de Jong: I hope this helps. The member is correct. There is a rollover effect, because if someone hasn't been placed in the first quarter, then they end up showing up again in the second quarter.

[1655]

Here are some additional statistics. The average length of time for placement through that fiscal year breaks down as follows. This is the average length of time. In the first quarter, 40 days; in the second quarter, 43 days; in the third quarter, 50 days; and in the fourth quarter, 46 days.

K. Conroy: Is it correct — I'm sure the minister will correct me if I'm wrong — that only individuals who are going to require care within a three-month period are actually placed on the waiting lists?

Hon. M. de Jong: I just want to make sure I understood the question correctly, and I may have to call upon the member to repeat the question. Well, I'm going to ask the member to repeat the question.

K. Conroy: It's my understanding that individuals who require care within a three-month period, who require care within three months, are eligible to be wait-listed. So only if you require care within three months are you eligible to actually get on that wait-list. If a family thinks they might need care in four months, they're not allowed on the wait-list. You get it, yeah.

Hon. M. de Jong: I am advised that that statement is essentially correct.

K. Conroy: In relation to the number of patients who are actually determined as ALC, we know that many of them are taking up acute care beds in acute care facilities. What does the ministry have in place to deal with that large percentage of seniors waiting for placement in residential care facilities?

Hon. M. de Jong: This may be because of the chronology in which the questions were asked. I think I understand the nature of the member's question, but I don't want to leave the impression that the issue we just canvassed — the three-month requirement — somehow contributes to people spending more time in an acute care bed.

If someone is in an acute care bed and has been assessed as requiring placement in a care facility, they are eligible right away, and the first available bed is made available to them.

[1700]

In response to the larger question about the steps that are taken to address the ongoing need and the ever-expanding need, I come back to the aggressive plan of construction and renovation that the government has undertaken since June '01. I am advised that we are now up to 13,780 new and replacement beds and units and that that means today there are 6,300 more beds and housing units than was the case ten years ago.

Having said that, there is, obviously, from the numbers we have seen, an ongoing pressure and an ongoing need. But we are admittedly proud of the fact that placement now takes place far more quickly than was the case eight, nine or ten years ago.

K. Conroy: Well, I think the reason that the placement is quicker is because you're only allowed to be sitting there if you have a three-month wait. So in years past, people were put on wait-lists when they might have had a four-month wait or something like that, so it goes to show the difference in numbers.

You referred to the numbers, so it goes, of course, to the next question around the numbers of beds. Of those new beds that you referred to, how many of them are designated as hospice beds, convalescent care beds, respite care beds, acquired brain injury beds, transitional beds or palliative care beds, just to name a few of the beds that are not residential care beds, that are, in fact, all the other categories of beds that seniors could find themselves in but are not residential care?
[ Page 7397 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: What I'll do, just given where the member resides and represents, is I'll read the line for Interior Health, and then perhaps it's better for me just to provide the data to the member. What the member will receive is the following. This relates to Interior Health Authority. We categorize, as follows, for residential care beds, the broad category of short-term residential care beds: convalescent, 103; end-of-life, 71; respite, 50; what are termed flex beds, 46; long-term residential care beds, 4,914; temporary beds, 95; family care home beds, 13 — for a total of 5,292.

There are additional categories — assisted-living units, 925; and group home beds, three. That similar breakdown exists for all of the health authorities, and I'm happy to provide it to the member.

[1705]

K. Conroy: I'd be happy to receive that. Those are total beds in each of the health authorities? Those aren't the newly designated beds that you referred to since 2003?

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, those are total beds. What the member can cross-reference is a list of the new beds also broken down by health authority so she can compare the numbers as well as I can, which I can provide to her.

K. Conroy: Thank you to the minister. That's much appreciated. I'd just like to point out that in the years I've been doing this, '05 to '07 and then again now, I've never been able to get a concrete answer around wait-lists from any health authority. So it's interesting to get those today.

Interjection.

K. Conroy: What have you done? I know; the health authorities are shaking their heads.

There continues to be significant debate around the various types of residential care. There are the non-profit, the for-profit and the government-provided facilities. I believe there continues to be this debate about which best serves both the seniors of B.C. and the taxpayers.

There's a national study that was done by the Institute for Research on Public Policy, an independent national organization. Their studies did find that non-profit or public facilities generally provided better service than for-profit. That doesn't say that there aren't for-profit facilities that provide excellent care. Some do. But as a group there were higher standards of care in the non-profit and government-funded.

Since 2001 there's been the highest rate of privatization of care facilities in Canada right here in B.C. Currently there's no independent statistical data that compares one type of care with the other here in B.C. The for-profit sector is actually exempt from providing financial information that would help in developing those definitive comparisons between the three basic models of care.

I'm just wondering if the minister feels that in the near future for-profit facilities should be included under the Freedom of Information Act so that we can access that information.

[1710]

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I understood the specific question relating to the application of FOI provisions and the FOI Act. I'm not sure this helps, because my sense is that we may be at a bit of a philosophical divide here. I may not be as offended as the member at the notion of the private sector participating in the limited way that it does in this aspect of care and seniors care.

Whether or not a facility is non-profit, whether it's owned by a health authority or whether it's a for-profit, privately held facility, the standards to which they are held are the same, and they are required to meet those standards. As part of that monitoring process, data is generated and inspections take place. Because that information comes to government — I've asked, and it's been confirmed — that information is FOIable. It is information in the possession of the government.

It's an interesting proposition, though, that the member raises that a private agency would be deemed subject to the same FOI requirements, meaning their proprietary fiscal data and, I suppose, any document that agency produced would be subject to the same FOI provisions as any department of government or any of the public institutions that are covered by FOI.

It's an interesting proposition. On the face of it, it's probably not one that I subscribe to. But I suspect the member has reasons why she believes it is appropriate to examine that material. I'm happy to hear them. I'm happy to have her take advantage of this opportunity to make the argument.

We the state, we the Crown, we the ministry and health authorities contract with these private facilities for the delivery of service. The contract stipulates the rate of pay they will receive for that service, and the contract stipulates the standards to which they are expected to adhere and a monitoring process by which we seek to assure that standard is being upheld.

It is an additional step to say: "Therefore, in exchange for having the right to contract with the state, you are now required to throw open all of your books, all of your documents, and all of that becomes public property." I'll think about that, but I can't guarantee that I will come to the same conclusion as I think the member has. In fact, I've got a pretty strong suspicion that I will come to a different conclusion.
[ Page 7398 ]

K. Conroy: The minister and I agree on something, so that's probably where we'll leave it. I think it's important to note that a large part of the funding for those facilities is government funding and taxpayers' dollars, and it would be good to know how it's being spent.

I wonder if the ministry tracks the amount of those dollars, the public health care spending dollars that go to the for-profit sector, that actually end up being profit for the facilities as opposed to reinvesting it back in seniors care.

[1715]

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the short answer is: no, we don't differentiate. I think I understand the nature of the question being advanced by the member. When I say "we," it is fair…. As I have been reminded, we as a ministry don't.

The funding flows via the health authority, but I think the member's question sought to capture that. My understanding is that (1) the ministry does not differentiate; (2) the health authorities do not.

They contract on the basis of an expected level of service. There is a negotiated price for the delivery of that service and recognition that differing organizations may have differing efficiencies.

I suppose, as I was also reminded, there is one way by which the state generally tracks profitability, and that's the tax system. Corporations file tax returns, and when they are profitable, they pay taxes. But I rather suspect the member was questioning or trying to ascertain whether there was a different form of tracking. The answer is no.

That, I suppose, derives in part from the belief that if the contract is being upheld, if the service is being delivered in a way that meets the standards that are set in the contract, there are limits to the extent to which the state should intrude. If we believe, as we do as part of these contracts that we are receiving, that we and the patients that are being served are receiving value for money, we are content to allow the private agency to manage itself beyond that.

I have the member's point about the fact that these represent public dollars. We seek to utilize these other tools via the contract and the monitoring of the contract to ensure that we are getting the best possible value for money.

As I stand here and I think, if the test were to be…. I'm not trying to belittle or diminish the argument that the member has made, but as I think this through, if the test for whether or not an agency should be subject, for example, to full FOI provisions or full audit is the delivery of public moneys, I suppose…. I think of all the agencies that receive public moneys via grants and other processes. They may think twice about whether or not they want to apply if that becomes the test.

But I've gone on long enough. The member probably has other thoughts on this.

K. Conroy: As a former executive director of a non-profit society that received substantial taxpayers' dollars, there was continual checking into what I was doing and auditing and making sure that the money was being put back into the services. I don't think any organization that's receiving taxpayers' dollars, as far as non-profits go, would question that, because we all do it, or I did it. I know they all do it, so I think it's a fair comment.

You referred to standards of care, so we're going to get into that. There really are no legislated standards of direct care in residential care facilities. There's nothing that mandates by legislation the care that should be provided in a residential care facility — the type of care that should be designated for RNs, LPNs, care aides, recreational activities, therapy staff, that type of care. I'm referring to all residential care facilities — health authority, non-profit, for-profit.

There was an extensive study, commissioned by the U.S. Congress, carried out by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that found a minimum staffing level of 4.1 worked hours per resident per day — the acronym is HRPD, which I will refer to — is required to avoid jeopardizing the health and safety of residents within long-term care.

[1720]

In B.C. it's my understanding that most health authorities average about 2.6 HRPD, which means there are facilities providing fairly low levels of care. There's not a consistency on the levels of care in the facilities, and that's a real concern. I think that it shows staffing levels are one of the most important factors in determining quality, and higher levels of care mean better outcomes for the seniors living in those.

I'd like to know what the minister's opinion is on establishing legislated standards in the residential care facility that affects all levels of residential care in the province.

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, apologies to the member. The specific question relates to the advisability of incorporating statutorily the kinds of requirements that today exist in guidelines, in policy, and are implemented contractually. There's a certain attraction to the legislative model because it has the force of being codified in law.

[1725]

I appreciate the discussion and find that over the years there is a tendency to rule things out and take positions from which it's difficult to retreat. But I will be candid.

In an area like this I wonder if a statute is the best instrument. We went through, a few moments ago, the variation. Thankfully, at the behest of the hon. member, we talked about convalescent, end-of-life, respite — the varieties of care that are out there.

I guess it might technically be possible to legislate a standard for each. One wonders, though, as time goes by and expectations of citizens change, whether or not
[ Page 7399 ]
legislation is the best vehicle by which to reflect those requirements and expectations. Right now there are policies, there's a manual, and we seek to implement those requirements contractually.

I think from the note that I read, the member or her colleagues may have earlier been provided with a breakdown of the range of hourly care standards for at least Interior Health and maybe the other health authorities. If that's not the case, I can address that.

I guess the short answer is that perhaps, at this stage at least, I don't think I share the member's enthusiasm for embedding statutorily the kinds of hourly care standards that we are discussing, but — and I am not meaning to be flippant — I am interested in the argument that says that is a more logical place to stipulate what the standard of care should be.

K. Conroy: When I look at what happens in the child care world — which has the same type of licensing regulations as residential care, supposedly — there are very distinctive guidelines in child care, and there's not near the funding in child care that there is in seniors care. But there are very strict guidelines that all the different kinds of child care facilities have to adhere to, right down to four infants for one infant-toddler caregiver type of….

A Voice: Is it legislated?

K. Conroy: It's in the act, and I think it's legislated, yeah — within the act. It's an act that early childhood providers have to adhere to. You have to follow that, or you lose your licence.

So I think that that same type of structure should be put in place for residential care facilities. Yes, there are a lot of different kinds of facilities, but there are different kinds of care needed in different facilities. I think that that's something that the minister or ministry could look into.

I'm just wondering…. Yes, we do have an idea of what the average is on health care — HRPD — across the authorities, but it would be good to get that from the ministry, just by each authority, just to see what the average is by each authority, from the ministry's perspective. I'm also wondering if the ministry has a benchmark for HRPD in residential care facilities, just in the residential care facilities.

Hon. M. de Jong: The answer is: there is. It's 3.2. That would be the standard that has been set at the ministerial level and that the authorities are tasked to try to meet.

K. Conroy: Has the ministry determined how much it would cost to ensure that facilities can actually reach that level of 3.2?

[1730]

Hon. M. de Jong: I know that the member has other questions, so I will tell you that the answer is no. I don't have a figure. I may be able to get one, but I'm not sure we're in a position at this point to collectively…. I don't think we necessarily have examined all of the facilities, all of the contracts, and done the analysis that says that in order to get to that standard, it is going to cost X number of dollars. I have asked, but I certainly don't have it at my fingertips.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

K. Conroy: Is this something that the ministry is going to undertake? Is there, potentially, money in this year's budget that could alleviate some of the concerns in the health authorities that there's not actually enough money so that a lot of the facilities can provide the 3.2 hours of care per resident per day? Is this something the ministry is undertaking?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm advised and can advise the member that over the past year about 27 million additional dollars have been invested by the health authorities in increasing staffing levels.

I think part of the challenge lies in the fact that we are dealing with — and we canvassed this earlier — an average, so 3.2 may be appropriate. In fact, in some cases 3.2 won't be enough for a young brain injury victim. That may be. It may require four hours.

In some cases there will be facilities for which the number is higher, and it may be possible to drop that a little bit. But who wants that to happen? Generally, when we talk about averages, it's about bringing people up to the average and not redistributing anyone downward. We've set a target. Some significant additional dollars have been allocated.

I think the member's point, which I would not dispute, is that we should continue to track and develop an inventory so that we know with some certainty where the standard is being met and, more importantly, where the standard is not being met so that we have that information and know where we need to focus.

[1735]

K. Conroy: I would look forward to receiving that information and knowing that it's happening, hopefully, in the very near future. Just to remind the minister, the study that I referenced said that 4.1 hours of care in residential care — not in convalescent, not in brain injury — provided the optimum service to ensure that safety and health were the primary concern for the residential care workers.

I want to move into user fees. The ministry has increased user fees for seniors in residential care facilities from 70 percent two years ago to 75 percent last year and 80 percent this year of their net income as a way of
[ Page 7400 ]
funding increased staffing levels. In addition, facilities still charge various charges.

I thought there were around 26,000, but you've pointed out that there were 26,500 seniors living in residential care that saw their fees raised in 2010 and again in 2011. Of that, approximately 75 percent of them actually saw their fees increase, and 25 percent saw no change or a small decrease.

Those in the lowest-income bracket are still paying more than before this government raised fees in 2003. Seniors in B.C. are now paying the highest rates in Canada. Through discussion with seniors in care and their families in our constituency offices and throughout the province, it's become apparent that this increase is causing real difficulties.

In fact, the HEU did this study called Standards of Respect: The Human Cost of Residential Care Fee Increases in British Columbia, which indicates that seniors are facing an untenable financial and personal burden under this new fee structure and seeing no resulting improvements in the care they actually receive.

I just want to quote some of the findings from this study. Family members and residents they spoke to have increasing tremendous financial and personal burdens because of the new increases. "Many residents report there is now not enough money left each month to pay basic bills, never mind any unexpected financial contingencies."

One grandma said: "There is no money left at all for any pleasure or recreation, such as having a meal with a grandchild or buying a birthday present." Some are being forced to make sacrifices in the standard of health care or the quality of life for themselves or their loved ones, while others are trying to maintain the status quo by draining their savings or enduring financial hardship.

Some couples actually feel forced to consider legally separating once one of them moves into care and the other one stays in the family home. "Some are being encouraged to do so by case managers during the intake process and to separate their finances for income tax and pension purposes. For some, this is quite a heartbreaking choice that symbolically invalidates their marriage."

We know that the government has said they'll review the minimum residential amount for residents every three years to ensure that it leaves residents with sufficient income. This could mean little help or comfort to residents in residential care facilities, who tend, on average, to only live in residential care facilities for about 1½ years. So a three-year review is of little comfort to them.

I'm wondering if the minister, in light of this, is considering an earlier implementation of the evaluation. Or perhaps the minister has good news, and this evaluation has already started.

[1740]

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for raising the issue. There's been, I think, a fair degree of discussion and interest around this. I'll take a moment to offer some thoughts on this, as I inherited this position within the government.

I'll cut to part of the chase because the member asked about whether there's good news. There is one aspect of this, at this point, that has caused me enough concern to ask that a partial review be initiated. That is with respect to couples and situations where one member of a couple goes into care and the means test is employed.

The objective behind the means test, quite frankly, is to ensure that the subsidy is calculated on a fair and reasonable basis. It is not to drive the other partner out of their home. It is not to put that person in a position where they no longer can stay in the home. So that part of this is something that I have heard enough anecdotal evidence and concern about to say: "Let's have a look at how the means test is being applied."

So if we can, for the moment, set that issue aside, I think a lot of the other conversation has revolved around the notion that a person would be asked to pay up to 80 percent of their after-tax income, to a maximum of $2,900. I think some people, quite frankly, are offended by that, despite the fact that the safeguard is built in. Maybe that's not the right term, but the minimum retention of $275. I, too, have heard what the member said: "Well, that's not enough money."

But I have to ask this. Someone gets to a point in their life where, sadly, they are no longer able to live at home, and the state — the taxpayers, as it were — say: "All right, we understand that, and we're going to make provision for you to have a dignified place to live that offers you the kind of care that you need."

It's expensive. It's certainly more than $2,900 a month in many, many cases. The taxpayers will assist, but you are going to be asked to contribute to that, no matter how modest your income. In some cases it's very modest. If it's $1,000, you will be asked to contribute $700.

The question is: is that fair? As you make that move — and it may well be your final move — is it fair to ask that person to contribute up to 80 percent of their after-tax income, recognizing that they, in all cases, will be able to keep $275? I must confess that I answer that question in the affirmative — that is, applied properly, taking into account what I said earlier about the need to ensure we are not disadvantaging a spouse or a partner.

To ask at that stage of someone's life that they contribute to what is now their home and the cost of being in that home…. We are talking about after-tax income. We don't talk about assets.

If you live in the Lower Mainland, some folks may own an asset worth a lot of money. If you live anywhere and you own a home, it's worth a lot of money. If you live in some places, it's worth a lot more money.

[1745]
[ Page 7401 ]

So I think the philosophical question is: is it reasonable? What are we talking about here? Is it unreasonable to ask people to contribute 80 percent of their after-tax income at that stage of their life to the cost of their housing, up to a certain amount and always preserving $275?

Is it the $275 that is offending people? Do people say that should be higher? Is it family members who are angry that mom or dad is no longer paying the phone bill in the home that they have left? I've heard that too. We might as well be upfront — I will try to be — about what part of this….

For some people, the rate adjustment resulted in them having a reduction in their assessed rate. In some cases it added up to about $500 more for them. Modest amounts, to be sure, but I think that is the question. As the population ages, it becomes a fundamental question. How much do we expect people to contribute to their own housing costs?

I'm obviously interested in hearing what the member has to say. But she can tell from my comments that the notion of asking people at that stage of their life, as they make that move, to contribute on the basis laid out here is in my view not unreasonable.

K. Conroy: I'm thrilled to hear that the ministry is going to look into the issue with couples. I'd like to know when that's going to happen and how soon something can be resolved, because I'm sure every constituency faces the same issue that we do in ours and that I've heard from other constituencies — that there are couples that are coming in and dealing with that — and it's a real concern.

I think the minister just laid out why there needs to be a study. It needs to be looked at — this fee, why this increase works for some people. I agree there are some people who can well afford it, but for those people who can't afford it, there needs to be something done so that they're not struggling.

We know seniors who are struggling, who have really high medication costs that are not covered within their facility, who have things like wheelchairs. We know some facilities are now charging extra fees for different things they never charged before. There's no rhyme or reason for that across the province.

There needs to be a study. I can't answer those questions for you, and it's obvious the minister doesn't know the answers to the questions, because he's asking them. That's why there needs to be a study done. We need to look at it to see why some people cannot afford this. It is a punitive fee to some people because they're struggling to make ends meet, and it's not working.

Again, I say to the minister that I think it's indicative on the ministry to put forth a study on this and do it post-haste so that we make sure seniors aren't continuing to be penalized by the fee increase. I didn't ask a question, so I'm going to move on.

I know the ministry has put into place a hardship review for those people that are really struggling, but the reality is that very few people know about it. It's difficult to access. It's incredibly hard to fill out. We've had people come into our office who have sat and gone through it with our constituency assistants, who are really bright people. It's difficult to fill out. It's almost made so that seniors go: "I'm not bothering with this. I can't deal with this."

What I'd like to know is if in fact the ministry has heard this same query and if they're looking at ways to make that process easier so that people who are suffering hardship because of these fees can access some kind of support to ensure that it doesn't hurt them in their life in the residential care facility.

Hon. M. de Jong: I appreciate the member's submissions on the point. I too have heard, for example, issues around PharmaCare. I'm advised there is a plan in place that is designed to address that. Whether that is occurring in all cases is something we are looking at.

[1750]

I think the member began her submission by commenting on the fact that a review is taking place. It is now, and we will apply ourselves with diligence to try to complete that as quickly as possible.

I understand that for folks that exist on modest incomes, even a small change — the manner in which, for example, deductibles apply to pharmaceutical drugs — can make a difference. So there is undoubtedly merit in the suggestion that we ensure we have a structure in place that is working fairly for all and not leaving some people falling through the cracks.

The only thing I can add beyond that, and have tried to disclose as candidly as I can, is that I philosophically favour and am supportive of an approach that does ask of the citizen who is receiving the service to contribute to that service. It should be done in a way that is fair, balanced, and we should have a structure in place that does not inadvertently disadvantage people.

I've already indicated off the top that I am concerned, in the case of couples, that that may in fact be taking place. We are, again, applying ourselves with all due diligence to try and address that.

K. Conroy: The minister said that we should have a structure in place. I'll be happier if he says that we will have a structure in place and that we have a time frame on how that structure will be rolled out.

In regard to these fee increases, the minister himself has said in the House: "All of the savings that are accrued are being put back into residential care for seniors…." Last year in estimates the former minister said: "Nevertheless, we felt that it was appropriate to bring about that rate change, such that all of those dollars — and that was the commitment we made and
[ Page 7402 ]
what the member references — will be returned to the residential care…."

Now, I'm thinking there might be a difference in interpretation from the two ministers. The current minister refers to all of the savings that are accrued being put back into the residential care facilities, and the former minister is saying that all of the dollars will go into the residential care facilities. Are they one and the same, and is there a difference or not?

Hon. M. de Jong: If I caused confusion, it was inadvertent, I can assure the member. I'm advised that as a result of the changes, the expectation is that there will be additional revenues over two years of approximately $53 million, and the direction is that all of those additional revenues are to be devoted, through the health authorities, to the residential care sector.

K. Conroy: Well, I'm going to refer to the report again that I referred to earlier. What they found is that experience is showing that there isn't an increase in the quality of care in the facilities, despite the government saying that the money is going towards just that.

In fact, they're finding that "services that were once included in the cost of residential care, such as occupational therapy or facility recreation," are now additional costs. "Residents and their families find themselves further out of pocket as they find ways to cover shortfalls — for example, buying groceries; buying items in short supply, such as incontinence pads; or hiring a private nurse for assistance with baths or meals."

[1755]

I'm wondering if the minister will ensure that there is full disclosure on where all of the residential care client user-fee revenue has gone, particularly on Vancouver Island. It's my understanding — and the ministry can correct me if I'm wrong — that care providers have not seen any increase on Vancouver Island stemming from this increase in fees to the residential care residents.

Hon. M. de Jong: I hope this will provide the member with some information that's of assistance to her. So far, I can advise the member, the health authorities have reported the following. Fiscal years and calendar years tend to get a bit confusing, but here is what I am advised so far.

In terms of additional investments thus far, of $41.5 million, 68 percent, or $28 million, has been invested in increasing nursing, allied health, care aide staffing levels per resident-day, coming back to the formula that the member mentioned; 6 percent, or $2.6 million, invested in education, clinical leadership; 1 percent, or $500,000, in specialized services for supports for distinct populations; 11 percent, or $4.4 million, in non-capital equipment; and 14 percent to address policy changes and compliance.

There is a tracking of where the money is being expended, and that will continue to take place. I'm happy to provide a written version of the information to the member.

K. Conroy: I appreciate getting a copy of that. Some care providers have expressed concern, as the only increase they're receiving this year actually maintains the client user-fee revenue. Those are fees coming directly off the seniors themselves, which means care providers can't keep up with inflation costs.

Does the ministry's budget enable appropriate levels of funding to care providers, in addition to the client user fee, which is supposed to be used for increasing levels of care, not for maintaining the status quo?

[1800]

Hon. M. de Jong: To be fair, this is only a partial answer to the member's question, but what I can provide her with…. Again, there will be a Hansard record of this, and I can give her the print version of the numbers.

There are incremental revenues. In addition to that, health authorities have chosen to increase the amounts payable to care facilities, but that has varied. I can't advise the member of that number.

What I can tell her is that as of September 2010, the incremental revenues for Fraser Health were $13 million; for Interior, $8.2 million; for Northern, $1.4 million; for Vancouver Coastal, $8.8 million; and for Vancouver Island, just over $10 million. Those are incremental revenues totalling $41.5 million that were turned back into the residential care sector.

I think the member's other point, in fairness, was that costs continue to rise, and I won't argue that. Our expectation is that these moneys will translate into improved levels of service, but there are cost increases and cost pressures that operators face. I'm sure at least a portion of those incremental revenues are used to offset some of those cost pressures.

K. Conroy: Just to clarify, is the minister saying that the ministry gives the dollars to the health authority, and then the health authority has the ability to do what they'd like with it, and some health authorities have put it back into residential care?

It's my understanding that residential care facilities with Vancouver Island Health Authority haven't received increases. I'd like to be corrected if I'm wrong, but is there no specific guideline or mandate or directive from the ministry saying that you have to spend this money in these residential care facilities in your health authority?

[1805]

Hon. M. de Jong: What I wanted to do was track the routing that these incremental dollars follow. The
[ Page 7403 ]
first thing I can tell the member is yes, the instruction is that the incremental revenues must remain. The instruction to the health authorities from the ministry is that the incremental revenues must remain in the care sector.

Practically what happens, and this is what I was trying to ascertain, is the incremental revenues that derive from the user fees remain with the provider. Whilst the authority may occasionally work with the providers to level out as between one provider or another, those incremental dollars actually stay with the providers.

It's not a case of the money getting lost in translation somewhere along the line. Transactionally, the money flows between the patient and the provider, and therefore, the moneys, in this case $41.5 million, remain very much, as it is intended, within the care sector.

K. Conroy: That $41 million that you've referenced — that's money that each individual residential care facility keeps within its own organization. They don't have to give it to the ministry or to the health authority to have them determine where it goes. It's kept there, and it's up to the individual residential care providers to determine how they're going to utilize those dollars.

[1810]

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I understand the member's question again. There is, in fact, some levelling out as between facilities. I thought the member's concern was that somehow the money came into the ministry and then disappeared, and only a portion of it was making its way back to the care facility. That, I am advised, is not the case. The health authority works with the stable of care providers to ensure that there is some equity between them. The money remains with the care providers and within the care sector, although there is, I am told, some redistribution amongst them.

K. Conroy: I wasn't concerned about the money being lost in the ministry somewhere. It sounded like the money was going to the health authorities and being lost there somewhere, especially in the case of Vancouver Island, where care providers continue to say they haven't received any increases. I'm not understanding why they would say that if, in fact, they keep the increase from residents and it doesn't go to the authority. But what they're saying is that the authority hasn't provided them with the increase.

Hon. M. de Jong: What I can say is this. The instruction from the ministry to the health authority is clear. They are reporting to the ministry that the incremental dollars collected are being utilized in the care sector. Maybe the best way for us to address this is that if the member has — and I think she has — examples of specific facilities, homes, that believe that is not the case, then we are interested in receiving that information from her.

K. Conroy: I'll be sure to do that.

One of the issues that has come up, primarily in publicly funded facilities, is where there are contracts in place for the workers and there isn't sufficient funding to cover the cost of the contracts. There have been increases to those contracts between the ministry or health authority — whoever it's through — to ensure that there is, in fact, compensation there to cover the rates that staff have negotiated.

The other issue in relation to that is — I guess we go back to Bill 29 — where facilities are saying: "We can't cover the costs of the directive around hours of care per resident per day, so we're going to get rid of this contract and go back to a cheaper contract."

We're looking at staff, once again, facing cuts to contracts, which have been happening for a considerable number of years now. It has been proven, in the court of our land, that it wasn't an appropriate decision that was made. I know that the minister wasn't the minister back when that happened, but it is happening now. Once again, we have facilities where they are facing cancelling of contracts and contracting out to providers that provide lower-care service.

[1815]

Hon. M. de Jong: There have certainly been examples, I think, of the phenomenon that the member described. Attributable to what? Probably a scarcity of money. We contract with service providers….

Sorry, I should back up. I was speaking with staff a moment ago. We talk about the cancellation of contracts. Contracts are negotiated for a fixed term, and the contracting parties decide on the basis upon which the contract can be renewed. But each party has the option to decide whether or not to renew a contract.

In a scenario where there are finite dollars being made available, I suppose it is natural, and I suppose equally, at times, disconcerting for employees if a service provider decides to test the market to ascertain whether or not the service can be provided at a lower cost.

Admittedly, our interest as a ministry and as a government — dare I speak for the health authorities? — is that comparable levels of service and appropriate levels of service, as governed by the contract between the service provider and the health authority, are being met and being provided. I think that does put pressure on operators, and I think at times it has led them to test the market. We have seen some examples of that in the past.

The question, I suppose, is: to what extent do people wish the state via the Crown and the ministry to intervene in that contractual relationship? I know it's at times tempting to do so. Finding the balance between allowing the market dynamic to find the appropri-
[ Page 7404 ]
ate and fair spot and also recognizing that we expect the appropriate levels of service as determined by the contract between the health authority and the service provider to be met — that is the challenge.

Were it not for the fact that everyone is driven to extract the maximum efficiency in value out of the contracts that they have, we may not see that pressure. I don't see a day where that pressure is not going to exist arriving anytime soon. I think that is a fact that we are going to be confronted with for a number of years to come.

K. Conroy: In reference to the minister's comments, yes, it's about money. But it's also about seniors and their last years of life and dignity of care, and ensuring that the political will is there to make sure that seniors do have the best care that they can get when they are in their last years of their life, which they usually are when they enter residential care. I think that that's just something that the minister has to take into mind.

I don't think that…. You might want to talk about the market dynamics, but I'm talking about the level of care. We have to talk about the fact that it's health care. It's not a health business, but some people would prefer to think of it as a health business. I think we need to remember that we're dealing with people.

[1820]

You've led me right into where I'm going next. That's on the actual labour market report that was released. It was done with ministry participation. Planning, Attracting, Engaging and Sharing Knowledge: A Human Resource Strategy for the Community Health Workers, Residential Care Aides and Licensed Practical Nurses in B.C.'s Private and Not-for-Profit Seniors Care Sector is the final report from the Seniors Care Human Resource Sector Committee and one I'm sure the ministry and minister are well aware of.

I was impressed not only with the makeup of the committee — which represented all sectors, and stakeholders such as unions, post-secondary education, HEABC, various ministries — but also with the outreach that was done with stakeholders that weren't actually sitting on the committee. It's a well-researched document, and what it makes really clear is that retention and recruitment are key challenges in this sector now and in the future facing the elder sector.

The report contains a list of 20 recommendations aimed at improving things like staff training; workplace safety; and, as I said, recruitment and retention. Is the government committed to carrying through on these commitments?

Hon. M. de Jong: I wonder if I might beg the committee's indulgence. I thought I might get to the top of the hour without having to ask for the break I am about to ask for, but five minutes would be valuable for any number of reasons.

The Chair: This House will stand recessed for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 6:21 p.m. to 6:31 p.m.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks, Madam Chair and to the member, for the brief recess.

Well, I have enough respect for the member not to want to in any way mislead her about anything, including this report. I'm aware of the report. I haven't read it yet, nor have I met with the B.C. Care Providers Association, though I'm advised that a meeting is due to take place at the staffing levels. So I'm not in a position to authoritatively say to the member that X number of the recommendations are in the process of being implemented.

In fact, I'm not in a position on an informed basis to say much at all, except to say that I appreciate the fact that she's drawn attention to the report. I can assure her that it will form the basis of discussions with the B.C. Care Providers Association, and that will trigger a requirement on my part, the ministry's part and government to formulate a response to the recommendations.

K. Conroy: With the issue of the time frame that we have, I respect that, and I'm looking forward to knowing when the minister thinks that those decisions will be made — if it's near future, a long time away or some kind of time frame that we can know.

Just to point out, one of the key risks that the study talked about in terms of senior care is that turnover in residential care and home care is impacting the cost and acceptability and safety of seniors care. As well, they've got an unstable workforce, which will impact, again, the ability of sector employers to compete for a shrinking labour force to provide safe and high-quality care for B.C.'s aging population.

One of the things it refers to is that some of the best ways of retaining and recruiting people in this sector are by providing decent wages and working conditions and ensuring that they've got decent benefits. It's been shown in a number of other studies as well that seniors in care do better when they have…. They are a lot healthier and they just do better when there is consistency of staffing and when those levels of care that I talked about are such that the staff feel confident to be able to carry out their care.

I'm going to put it to the minister that…. I'm not sure if there's any money in the budget for it or if it's something that potentially can be, but it's obvious that, once again, the level of care of staffing in facilities has a direct relation to some of the issues that are major issues in residential care. So I ask again: is there funding there to
[ Page 7405 ]
ensure that we can at least have some level of care that might actually stem from the recommendations from this report?

Hon. M. de Jong: First, let me say this for the in excess of 14,000 people that are employed in the sector: the work they do is incredibly valuable. I know that's easy to say.

[1835]

But if you have seen, as I think most members have, what takes place in some of these homes and the bond that does establish between — call them the patient, the client — the resident who is there, in many cases it represents the final friendships that people will form in their lives. So there is an importance that one needs to attach to trying not to disrupt that bond and that friendship.

The desire to provide appropriate wage levels, benefits is a genuine and important objective. The funding for that comes from one of two sources or a combination of two sources. It comes from the taxpayer, and it comes from the residents themselves, and really what we're talking about is how to apportion that — how to apportion how much of that burden the taxpayer and society generally will bear and how much will be borne in a reasonable way by the folks who are receiving the service.

Again, I hope that the member will take some comfort from the fact that I approach these duties genuinely cognizant, in some cases for very personal reasons, of the importance of that bond that develops between the resident and the folks that come in day in and day out and, sometimes in very difficult circumstances, administer care to folks who are coming to the end of their life. It is hard to imagine a more difficult job or one that is, I hope, more fulfilling and more important to the pioneers in our society.

We will be proceeding with the analysis, the meeting with the association, and in the weeks ahead, as opposed to the months ahead, should be in a position to speak more definitively to the recommendations.

K. Conroy: I agree with what the minister has said. I've been in a number of residential care facilities across the province and watched the interaction between care providers and the residents. It's indeed heartwarming to see and to know that the people really do care about their jobs but that they care more about the residents they're caring for in the facilities.

But it seems to me that what I'm seeing with a lot of people who work in those care facilities is that a number of them are being asked to take lower wages and benefits in order to keep providing a level of care to seniors. I was wondering: is that something the minister agrees with? Or is it the intent of the ministry that in publicly funded facilities staff are being asked to take lower wages and benefits in order to fund care for the seniors?

[1840]

Hon. M. de Jong: A couple of things. I am, first of all, aware of the suggestion or the concern that's been expressed around the average wage discrepancy between health authority–run facilities — in the case of care aides, for example — and association-run facilities.

Again, I want to acknowledge what I think lies at the heart of the challenge. On the one hand, we seek to extract maximum value on behalf of the taxpayer where public dollars are involved and therefore transfer that objective via contract and other contractual instruments to the facilities, to the care providers, yet we want to also ensure that the people that perform this incredibly valuable work are being paid fairly. Finding that elusive balance and structuring the contractual relationships in a way that helps achieve it seems to me to be an ongoing challenge.

I'm aware, for example, of the discrepancy that has been laid out. I think it's part of the report. I'm aware of it because I'm reading a summary now that has been provided to me. I will endeavour, as part of the review exercise, to look into it.

I hope the member will take from this discussion that I don't actually approach this from any sort of rigid ideological position. I take seriously, on the one hand, the need to ensure that there is that stability, that people are being employed in fair and reasonable circumstances, are being remunerated fairly. On the other hand, I also take seriously the obligation that I think we have to achieve the best value we can on behalf of the taxpayers where tax dollars are being paid.

There seems to be a natural tension there, and the goal and the objective is to try and find a reasonable balance between those two objectives.

K. Conroy: I think the minister would probably agree, then, that when you have people that are paid decent wages and benefits, they in the long run actually save the government money because seniors get better provision of care. There are not those issues that come up that do come up in facilities — things like bed sores because a resident can't be turned over because there's not enough staff on duty to do it on a continual basis, which evolves into worse acute care issues, and they end up in acute care. By ensuring that seniors health in residential care is provided in an appropriate manner, I think the government would find they would actually save money in the long run.

I'm also thinking that what the minister is referring to is something that he referred to earlier about a potential comprehensive study to look at what's happening in the sector. Perhaps the financial aspect of it in this way could be put into an overall review of the sec-
[ Page 7406 ]
tor to see what is actually happening. It seems like there are differences in health authorities. There are different regions within health authorities. There are different types of facilities.

I think that seniors in this province deserve some continuity of care and that there should be something to look at it, to see what's happening and what's not happening. I'm wondering if the minister would commit to something like that in the very near future.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I'm attracted by the suggestion. May I add, though, one additional component to this? I think we have to be cautious that we not miss what I think is an important component, and that is: what are we doing as individuals to prepare? What are we doing as individuals to prepare for that day when we can no longer live at home? In fairness, I think that is a part of the conversation that we have been reluctant to have.

[1845]

I'll give you an example. I'm always very, very leery of any kind of stereotype, particularly ones that are based around ethnicity, but I will make this observation from having grown up in my community.

There is a segment of my community that I think does a proportionately better job of tending to seniors individually. In the South Asian community there is a cultural awareness and a cultural acceptance of the responsibility for caring for seniors, for grandma and grandpa, for great-grandparents, which seems to have disappeared from many other segments of our society. How do we re-establish or rekindle that awareness in other parts of society? How do we remove some of the impediments that exist?

In some communities it's awfully difficult to have a legal suite in a home to care for parents. These are systemic impediments that the removal of which doesn't actually cost money and would relieve some of the pressure that we feel and that we are talking about today, which manifest themselves in the nature of the discussion we're having today.

My view is that unless we are prepared to become more proactive individually, more proactive as the state to remove some of these impediments and instil greater realization on the part of individuals and families that there is a role to play…. If we cling to the notion that the state is going to assume and accept responsibility for all of this, we are destined to be disappointed. I look ahead demographically. I don't see the state and society generally being in a position to provide the fiscal wherewithal to provide the quality of care that I think people expect and deserve.

How do we mobilize in a different way? I'm attracted by the prospect of the kind of review suggested by the member. But she is probably detecting a bias on my part, which is a chapter that goes: what is the role of the individual? What is the role of the family in planning for that day 20, 30 or 40 years out when it comes time to leave the family home and move into another facility?

I get the sense that adding that component to such a study is not something that offends the member, but I'm happy to hear otherwise.

K. Conroy: No, it doesn't offend the member. But I will say that what is concerning and what we need to look at is what's happening now. Yes, as part of that study, that could be what people are looking towards in their future. I, too, look at some of the ethnic communities that really do go out of their way to ensure that they provide care for their seniors. But with a lot of seniors, they don't have that family. They don't have those people they can reach out to. There are very few people even in their circle of friends that can help them. For those people, we have to make sure that now there are services for them.

I mean, I'm really fortunate. I live in a community where my husband and all his siblings live in the same community, so they're able to help take care of their dad who's in assisted living and probably needs more care than what can be provided in assisted living. They all take turns doing it, so he's a fortunate man. But we see people in that same facility who don't have that kind of family that can help them. They don't have the family living in the community. They don't have any of the friends or relatives that are there. So we have to make sure that care is in place for those people who don't have it.

If we want to talk about ensuring that there are safeguards in place for people in the long run, I think we only need to look at…. The majority of the people that work in residential care right now are women. The best way to ensure that women have a healthy, long life is to make sure they have decent wages and working conditions now and a good pension. For a lot of those people in the facilities, that's not happening.

[1850]

By wanting to look forward, to look 20, 30 years down to make sure that we in fact have looked towards our own retirement and what we're going to need, we should be looking at those people working in those facilities. You're not going to see the cost savings up front now, but you will see the cost savings in the future. I guess it's a political will again to look at what we need to do for the future and not what we need to do before the next election to get elected, which is something that politicians probably have a problem with, everybody included.

That's what we have to do, though. We have to have the political will to look to that.

I think I have time for one more question. It's my understanding, and the minister can correct me if I'm wrong, that the Interior Health Authority is the only health authority that's actually stipulated guidelines around hours per resident, per care, per day, that their facilities know they all have to provide a minimum staffing level of 3.1 hours per resident per day. They're
[ Page 7407 ]
letting the facilities know that. It's a target within the health authority, it's my understanding. It doesn't near reach the 4.1 level that is recommended. There is this target in that health authority.

The problem is that with a lot of the facilities, that level can't be reached with existing budgets. So once again, we're seeing a target dictated to facilities, and there are going to be implications. The implications are looking like it's going to be on the backs of the people working in facilities. Once again, we're seeing that…. It's a good thing to get a target in place, but what's not working is that people who work in the facility, by taking cuts to their pay and their pension, should be providing seniors care in this province.

I think what I'm asking the minister is that it needs to be rectified through funding from the ministry to ensure that those levels of care can be put into place, so we can ensure there are not mass layoffs of care workers and new contractors coming in at lower cost and that there's continuity of care for seniors. That's what I'm asking the minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: Let me just say this. I'm advised that other authorities, not just Interior Health, have notified service providers of their intention to move to a target, but I think the member was intending to convey a message, a broader message, than that.

There is pressure. There is certainly cost pressure, and I understand the member making the point that through the investment of additional dollars, some of these problems in the short term and maybe in the long term can be alleviated.

I simply want to say this, not as a plea to share the burden, but I've enjoyed the conversation and learned some things and undertaken to and been provoked to undertake some things, and that's, I think, a good utilization of this chamber and the time we spend here.

[1855]

I've also heard from colleagues of the member who, by rough calculation, have asked for the expenditure of an additional $2.5 billion for facilities. The member has focused on the human resource — which, by the way, at the end of the day, I agree, is the far more valuable of the two. It's the people that represent the heart and soul of the facility.

I understand the message that the member has brought. I will undertake a thorough review of the study that gave rise to the discussion in the first place, and I'm sure we'll have opportunities in the future to pick this up and to monitor the progress that we are making.

I detect from the rumblings that it is now time for me to say: I move the committee rise, report some progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:56 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. B. Penner moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:58 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
COMMUNITY, SPORT AND
CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

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

The committee met at 2:34 p.m.

On Vote 21: ministry operations, $243,265,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have an opening statement?

Hon. I. Chong: Yes, hon. Chair, if you don't mind. I just have a few opening remarks, if I may, and also some introductions.

Today I'm joined by members of my staff, and I'll take a moment to introduce them now. To my right I have the Deputy Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, Mr. Don Fast. To my left I have my assistant deputy minister for local government, Mike Furey.

Sitting behind me is the assistant deputy minister for sport, culture, arts and community grants, and that's David Galbraith. Beside him are Shauna Brouwer, who is our assistant deputy minister, as well, responsible for all the financial operations, I guess is the best way to describe it, and Ursula Cowland, also dealing with the gaming grants process.

[1435]

I would like to just begin by always, if it's appropriate, acknowledging the significant amount of work of the
[ Page 7408 ]
staff in the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development. I know it's a ministry that was established recently, on October 25, 2010, bringing together a number of areas that provided synergistic benefits in terms of our communities and our local governments. Just to say, every day staff in this ministry step up to the plate to do the work that's required to support communities, especially working through local government, working as well with our sport, art and culture sectors.

I know they do work hard to ensure that communities are well governed, with empowering, up-to-date legislation that adheres to the highest democratic principles. I know, as well, they work hard to ensure that our investment in sport and culture helps to create valuable jobs in those sectors. In addition, I know they work to ensure that the investments we do make help to produce healthier, more creative people as well as communities that are culturally rich, safe and connected.

We all want to live in vibrant places. To do so we have to have a skilled, well-educated population here in British Columbia and make sure those communities have that and be magnets to attract investments and ensure that we have the right labour force here as well.

I can also assure the members opposite that with this ministry we have taken on the responsibility for distributing community gaming grants. Certainly, I'm looking forward to a model, after a review process takes place, whereby we can determine how best to support a number of worthy programs at the community level.

I'd also like to thank the many people in British Columbia who have worked so hard, dedicated to their communities. They are, of course, our local mayors, our local councillors, regional district directors and the staff who support them, because they are also working to ensure that our mutual constituents have very much the benefit of dealing with some of the challenges that they face in their communities.

I have travelled through the province over a number of years, as I'm sure my colleagues opposite have as well. I think they will agree that we meet people throughout these travels that certainly show to us their absolute commitment to the community, about making it a better place, wanting to share with us their ideas and providing input on how government services and programs can better their communities.

In March of this year I had the honour of joining Premier Christy Clark in her new cabinet as the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and taking on this role, including as well the gaming grant distribution. I was very encouraged by the opportunity that I would have to deal with some of the areas that she has placed a focus and an emphasis on. That is, to look upon this as a time for change, to refocus on helping to make life better for British Columbians.

Of course, to make that happen…. We've heard on a number of occasions — I'm sure my colleagues opposite have heard from other ministers — that part of that change is to ensure that we do focus on families, that we focus on jobs and that we focus on open government. That is how we are moving forward in this ministry, ensuring that we do adhere to those priorities that she has laid out.

Just very quickly in terms of local governments, I want to say that we do have strong communities here in British Columbia. I had the pleasure of working with them for three years in a previous time here as a member of cabinet. A key aspect of the work of our ministry with respect to local government is to foster conditions that make growth and strength possible.

Look around the province and certainly you're going to see hundreds of local government projects that have taken shape over a number of years — new and upgraded water and sewer systems and infrastructure such as walking and cycling paths that increase physical activity, that also provide community gathering places such as parks, central plazas, outdoor entertainment areas. We all know of the Spirit Squares, which provided a number of public spaces in our communities around the province and have been, I think, a very great and welcome addition.

As well, we have put a number of tools and provisions in place to support local governments through the legislation that they have by virtue of the Community Charter and the Local Government Act.

With respect to the arts sector, again, I would like to say that since 2001 the provincial support for the arts and culture community in British Columbia has totalled more than $500 million, a record that I'm very, very proud of.

[1440]

This funding has really enriched communities at the grassroots level and has attracted international attention — especially through some of our sectors, particularly the film and television industry. The third-largest film and television service production centre in North America, after Los Angeles and New York, is right here in British Columbia.

The sports sector, also, is really being a leader in terms of delivering on…. Some of our best athletes are performing the very best at provincial, national and international games. We are a leader in delivering sports and, in fact, we have the most active province, with over 60 percent of our population ages 12 and older that are at least moderately active in their leisure time. So we are involved significantly with working with the youth in our communities, in our province, through the sports sector.

I'm excited that we were able to increase funding to KidSport B.C. We've been able to provide youth travel money through provincial sports organization and schools. We've been able to support after-school initiatives, and through our Hosting B.C. program we have
[ Page 7409 ]
been able to fund some of those important competitions here in British Columbia. That has allowed us to build on our largest-ever hosting experience, and that is, of course, the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games.

But as with everything, there are challenges, not only with households but with government as well. That means that there is not an endless pot of money that we can utilize to provide for every want and every part of the province. So we endeavour to be prudent in how we spend taxpayers' dollars, as we are the stewards of those dollars. Certainly, I have instructed my staff to be especially diligent in how those public dollars are spent.

We know that there are escalating costs that do create significant challenges to the services that people are requesting within their communities. For that reason, whenever there is a program that is available…. I know, and the member opposite will know, that we're always oversubscribed, but that always has been the case and perhaps will always continue to be the case because of all those many wants and desires for improvements in our communities.

Aging infrastructure and land use issues — those will always be a part, as well, of the areas of concern that local governments have been bringing to our attention, and we will no doubt continue to work with them through those.

There are challenges ahead, but at the same time I see this as a time of opportunity to work with local governments. I know that this is an election year, as well, for our local governments. I know that they are keen to be able to put their ideas forward as some of them seek re-election, and also for people who will run for the very first time. I want to at this time just thank those who have served who may not be seeking re-election, because local government, public life is a vital part of our communities.

With that, I want to thank the member opposite for indulging me and allowing me to provide some of these opening remarks. I know that there are a number of questions that he has ready for me, as well as a number of his colleagues, and we'll endeavour to get to them as best we can. In the event that we are not able to answer all during this session, he has my commitment that we will take any of those that he has and provide them back to him by way of writing if he wants to table those questions with us.

With that, I again say that I'm very proud to be a part of this ministry, and I look forward to the dialogue with my critic.

H. Lali: I want to start off by thanking the minister for that opening statement that she has made and a wide swath of what's going on in the ministry and all of the duties and responsibilities that the minister and the ministry have to look after on behalf of the government and the people of British Columbia.

I also want to start off by acknowledging the minister's staff, some of whom I met with earlier, and other folks who are sitting to the left in the gallery there. I want to acknowledge the great work that the folks who are in the public service do on a day-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month and, for many folks, on a year-to-year and even on a decade-to-decade basis. It's quite a commitment that people have.

Obviously, politicians are elected to serve for a period of four years, and then we have to go back and do our interviews and try to pass the test at election time. But the folks in the public service continue on doing the great work that they do.

[1445]

As I've said, every day they show up to do their job in a non-partisan way, and then while we as elected officials come and go, they're still here to carry on things on behalf of the people of British Columbia. So I want to recognize that and thank the public service for the great job that they do.

I also just want to point out to the minister that some of my colleagues have sent me late notes as to what they want to talk about. I just want to give a heads-up, in case some of the staff aren't here, that folks will have some questions on the GVRD. Also, sport. I inadvertently didn't put that on the list that I sent to the minister. Also, there'll be some questions on property assessment. That's so far what folks have said to me. So they'll be coming in and out. I just want to give that heads-up to the minister in case the staff aren't here.

My part of the critic area is local government, as the minister knows. There will be other members who will talk about sport and also about gaming grants, etc., towards the latter part of our estimates. But when it comes to local government, we are talking about municipalities and regional districts, and we're talking about communities.

There are so many communities — over 300 communities in this province. And then there are other communities that are not incorporated but are within regional districts. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of communities all throughout the province. Some of them are very large, like Vancouver or Victoria, compared to some of the smaller ones — like Lytton, for instance, in my constituency — and medium-sized ones like Kamloops and Kelowna and others that are spread throughout the province.

Communities, really — and the people, obviously, living in those communities — are the backbone of our province. Obviously, it is in the best interests of everybody concerned — the government and the minister and also the opposition and the critic — that we have healthy communities, that we have strong, vibrant communities and that we have communities with good, strong tax bases. In the end we know that survival in society often depends on money these days and the services that
[ Page 7410 ]
communities, municipalities and regional districts deliver on behalf of their constituents.

There have been challenges for rural British Columbia, especially over the last number of years, in many communities as the industry shut down or pulled out of town. Many people have gone to where the jobs are, whether they go seeking jobs in the Lower Mainland, the Peace country or Alberta or other urban centres within rural B.C. Then there are some communities that are left struggling. As a result of some of the shrinking tax bases, communities don't grow, but costs always rise on a year-to-year basis, due to many, many factors.

So I just want to start off by asking the minister to talk about the budget for this year. Now, in the 2010-11 estimates the ministry had, for the local government portion, $290 million that was spent. But the 2011-12 estimate for this fiscal year is $203 million. I know that there's been some rearranging of the ministries, but even given the rearranging and the moneys that have gone, that is a drop of 30 percent — $87 million. I was wondering if the minister could explain: why the drop from $290 million to $203 million?

[1450]

Hon. I. Chong: I think the member will know that with the ministry funding that is provided for local governments, generally what occurs is that infrastructure programs that are there, whether it has in the past been like the B.C. community water improvement program; whether it was MRIF, which is the municipal rural infrastructure program; whether it was then the Canada-B.C. fund or now the Building Canada fund…. These are all infrastructure programs that are made available.

Especially when we are matching with the federal government, we put in our budgets an amount that we expect is able to start, able to be completed. Therefore, we make payments out to it. But sometimes there are construction lags, and so we have to adjust the budget according to what infrastructure requirements will be made based on the completion dates.

In particular, we are aware that there was some one-time funding from Building Canada top-up. That was the BCFCC-TU program. There was also the infrastructure stimulus program, the ISF program. Again, these are with the federal government.

These projects were originally to be substantially completed by March 31, 2011. A good portion of them were completed. So in the '10-11 year, having required the completion date would have required the payment date to be provided. With those programs no longer being available, it of course has a significant reduction in the subsequent year, being the '11-12 year.

What it also means, though, is that we have had some which were not able to be completed. We were able to negotiate successfully with the federal government to move the deadline for completion to October of this year, so there will be some of that. Unless another federal program is introduced, then likely going forward we would again see another reduction there.

There have also been some changes with respect to the payment of the small community and traffic fine revenue-sharing grants to local governments. The amounts that have been provided for them have remained the same, once we had established those amounts. But there had been a year where there had been an acceleration of those dollars to, again, allow them to manage their cash flow a bit better, but the amount committed to is the same.

As the member will probably recall, we introduced the 100 percent return of traffic fine revenues. It was announced back in 2004. Those dollars have been made available each and every year. If they have increased, they will show an increase, but if there are declines in that, there could be some adjustments there.

The member will also know, I believe it was in 2005, that we had announced at that time the doubling of the small community protection grants. These are to our smaller communities. These are the unconditional grants that I believe at one time had been about $27 million, which now has been doubled. That amount stays the same.

So those amounts are there, but I mention them in the context of the fact that those are the two amounts that local governments, small communities depend upon. Normally, we would put them in our budget for a new year, but where there was an opportunity to accelerate them in one particular year, it would have seen an adjustment in a subsequent year. The dollars still would be available for local governments, but they would, again, show a difference in the budget years.

Finally, I just want to say that in addition to some of those programs we have had with the federal government in terms of partnering, what we've also had were our own programs that we had established. The member will probably recall the three programs that I recall I was involved in with local government a number of years ago. That was the LocalMotion program, the Spirit Squares program as well as the Towns for Tomorrow program.

[1455]

Again, these are application-based, and they are paid out once the project is completed. We will adjust the budget according to what we expect can be paid out, and if there are delays or lags in construction — and the member will know that in some parts of the province the construction season is limited — we will have to make adjustments for those. So that's essentially where many of the local government changes have been.

H. Lali: The minister said 100 percent of the traffic fine revenue was returned back to the communities. I was wondering if you can inform the House: how much
[ Page 7411 ]
was that, on a yearly basis, that has been returned for the last maybe three or four years?

Hon. I. Chong: While staff is trying to find the information, I can tell the member that my recollection is that back in 2004 or '05, I believe it was, somewhere in the neighbourhood of $40 million, thereabouts. I think at one point it had climbed close to $60 million. These are the net traffic fine revenue dollars that are returned.

The member will probably recall that…. In previous years I think $10 million is what had always been allocated. Perhaps from his days in government he'll recall that that was the amount. At the time we made the change, it was around $40 million. I believe now — staff whispered in my ear — somewhere around $60 million, $65 million is where we're at.

Again, what we will do is calculate those amounts and return the net amounts to those jurisdictions that pay for policing. It's not all municipalities, because of course some don't have the requirement to pay for policing. So it's based on that formula.

H. Lali: Now, I know that obviously, in a larger municipality with a lot more numbers of people and greater traffic there are going to be more fines that have been divvied out there as well. But does the minister have any kind of a breakdown — a regional breakdown, perhaps — and maybe any figure on a per-capita basis of what is generated for those municipalities in those particular areas?

A second question is: are regional districts able to capture some of that, as well, or not?

Hon. I. Chong: Perhaps the first way to respond to the critic's question on this is to share with him the way that traffic fine revenue-sharing grants are allocated. It uses a formula that is provided under section 8.1 of the local government grants regulations.

[1500]

It is distributed to municipalities in accordance with the ratio of an individual municipality's policing cost to the total municipal policing costs in the second previous year. It isn't based on per capita; it is based on policing costs. You could have two similar municipalities in size, but one has higher policing costs. I believe this was a formula that had been in place and agreed to in the Local Government Act, in the regulations.

What I can advise the member, as well…. In 2004 — and I was going on memory about the $40 million — it was about $41 million that at that time had been distributed. In 2005 that rose to close to $49 million; in 2006, $50 million; in 2007, $56 million; then in 2008-09, about $58 million. So it's gone up steadily. I guess we can say that there's been a good active enforcement and active payment of those traffic fine violations. Once those dollars are collected, they're distributed.

The question with respect to regional districts. Again, this is based on those communities that actually pay for policing, so based on their policing costs. If a regional district were actually paying for those costs, then they would be, I believe, included in the formula.

But I don't believe the regional districts, as a general rule, pay for all those costs. I could be wrong. There could be one that is a regional district, I think. It may be a regional district full of communities, but I can check into that. If the member wants, I can provide a list of this with all the breakdowns of all the communities, certainly, starting from Abbotsford right down to Williams Lake — a whole variety of communities that do share in this. If the member wishes, I will have staff get a clean copy to him.

The number of communities. This, again, goes from my recollection. I thought it was under 50 communities, but I will get that to him.

H. Lali: Okay. The minister says in the initial years about $40 million, and now it's up to about $65 million. That's an increase of — what? — about 50 to 60 percent from the year that it was instituted. I'm just wondering if the minister could tell me: is there any change in the funding formula that allowed that increase, or was it all more enforcement in terms of fines that were divvied out?

Hon. I. Chong: I can't speak to how the revenues rise. Perhaps the amounts could be better determined through the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. What we're advised is that the amounts that are collected are available for distribution. Then, based on the formula, as I've indicated, we distribute it to local governments.

We are the ministry that does the distribution, but the actual collections and how the traffic fines are created and then paid and enforceable have been through the Ministry of Solicitor General.

H. Lali: At this point the member for Delta South has some questions. I know she has House duties in the other House later on, so I'm just going to ask her to ask her set of questions. Then I'll continue with mine.

V. Huntington: We've had a strange situation in Delta recently where members of the public have written to the inspector of municipalities and have not been satisfied with the answers they're getting. What it appears to me is that the role of the inspector of municipalities may have changed. I was wondering if perhaps we could have some explanation of whether or not you see the legislation with regard to the inspector of municipalities' duties as relevant today or not.

[1505]
[ Page 7412 ]

Hon. I. Chong: Firstly, there has not been a change in the role of the inspector of municipalities in recent years. What I'm informed is that, generally, the inspector of municipalities has responsibility for approving a number of bylaws that don't actually require the minister's approval.

A couple of examples of that are bylaws to approve borrowing for local governments. That doesn't require my attention directly. It also can entail approval for phased development agreements, which can be significant but, again, do not necessarily require ministerial approval if the inspector is able to go through a number of the criteria that are listed to allow that to take place.

So generally speaking, no change in the role, and that's generally what the inspector is responsible for.

V. Huntington: Under section 1021 of the Local Government Act, the inspector of municipalities is also responsible for, or has the authority to, conduct inquiries into municipal matters. The issue for my constituents has been that there appears to be an unwillingness to do that and perhaps a sense that the language of that section is somewhat archaic.

We've received some indication that there are really no more public inquiries conducted under the office of the inspector. Does that section remain part of the inspector of municipality's duties, and if so, when have been the last public inquiries he's conducted under them?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm advised that the powers, as the member has described, with respect to a public inquiry…. She is correct that it is rarely used. Perhaps the reason why her constituents have been inquiring about a public inquiry is because it has been very rarely used. In fact, we're trying to determine when the last time was. It appears that it could have been as far as 15 years ago.

The reason why is because, in large part, local governments — as the member will know, having served on local council — are autonomous orders of government whereby we do wish that the issues that are of concern to constituents, which are of a more direct and usually local concern, can be dealt with by the local government — the mayor, council, other staff, administration — and not to have the inspector of municipalities necessarily drawn into areas that could, in fact, be resolved with the local government. We do, in fact, rely on them to do this.

However, if there is a specific case — and I don't know that there is — as to the reason why the member has received a number of complaints, I'd be happy to offer our staff, assistant deputy minister, to speak to the member off line about specific cases. There might be issues of privacy that we may not want to get into here at this time with this debate, but certainly, we can endeavour to find out what the issue is with respect to that.

[1510]

The member will also know that the Ombudsperson's office is available at times where someone has felt the administration of justice has not been appropriately carried out in the fairness principles of how an agency or a local government has acted. I think that is always an avenue as well.

Again, I can appreciate that sometimes, because of the rather unique and private and personal nature of a complaint, the individual may not always understand why we don't want to launch into some full public inquiry. But if there is a specific case that needs to be discussed, as I say, privately, I can certainly have that meeting set up with staff.

V. Huntington: Perhaps I can just end the issue with a question. If it is a matter, how does the inspector of municipalities determine yes or no to a query about a matter connected with a municipality or the conduct of part of its business? How does the inspector of municipalities determine whether to proceed or not when he receives correspondence from the public?

Hon. I. Chong: I understand, obviously, the concerns that sometimes are brought forward to MLAs and other members who serve the public, trying to understand the circumstances under which cases should or should not be fully reviewed and investigated.

The inspector of municipalities generally takes a look at, when he or she receives that information, under what authority it is being challenged — first of all, to make a determination whether the request to review a particular circumstance is under the authority of the inspector to look at or whether the local government, in its autonomous role, has the ability to deal with it.

I mean, if it's a planning issue or how someone doesn't want to deal with planning, obviously you don't want the inspector to spend time when clearly there is a planning department in the municipality that could be dealing with it.

If it is determined that there is merit to looking at it further, the inspector will generally contact the council and speak to the council to, again, make a determination if those initial areas of merit are validated and, if necessary, to then collect evidence and also to see whether we would proceed with investigating or not and whether that's warranted.

If there are areas of dispute that we think we can help the local council deal with the particular concern that has been raised, we do have a branch within our ministry that deals with dispute resolution. That individual usually tries to work with the local council and provides information there.

If the allegation is much more serious, again, the authority upon which we need to act, we would…. When I say more serious, if it requires a police review — an RCMP or municipal police to look at, that kind of
[ Page 7413 ]
investigation — obviously, it goes beyond what the inspector should be doing. Then we would need to pass over whatever information or documentation we gather and provide it to the responsible authorities to take a look at.

[1515]

Those are a number of things that the inspector of municipalities looks at before determining whether an inquiry needs to take place, which is why it is rarely used. I think what I understand from the staff is that oftentimes we can resolve that with the local government as to where the issue is.

Again, if there has been dissatisfaction with the member's constituents, we would be happy to speak off line to find out whether there has been some miscommunication or to even have a better understanding of the role of the inspector for her benefit and for the constituents' benefit.

V. Huntington: It's a very fulsome answer, and I truly appreciate it. It's not my quarrel with the local government, but I will provide Hansard to the constituents for their benefit.

Could I then ask, please: are there regulations attached to the office of the inspector of municipalities? And, if so, what are their numbers?

Hon. I. Chong: I think, as she indicated in her initial comments when she referenced the act and the role of the inspector of municipalities, that is where it's defined as to the role that he or she takes. There are not specific regulations with respect to that.

H. Lali: I just want to get back to the infrastructure grants again. One of the things with the municipalities and the regional districts is that they want to be able to do multi-year planning, planning their budgets, and also be able to plan for any kind of infrastructure that they have to do. I know these — well, especially these kinds of grants that come up for cost-sharing between federal, provincial and municipal entities — sort of come every four or five years. That's been the speed.

Then at the municipal level everybody has to ramp up their spending. In many cases they have to ramp up their taxes for a commercial-industrial-residential to be able to meet their obligations if they want in on the wagon train that's coming through with the money from the province and from the federal government.

What municipalities want is certainty to be able to plan. So my question is to the minister. Does the minister believe that instead of these municipal, federal or provincial grants that come up every four or five years, there should be multi-year ongoing infrastructure programs shared with the feds and the province so that municipalities and regional districts can either build up their reserves, knowing that this is happening, or have long-term borrowing that would be much more manageable than to ramp up property taxes one or two years in a row in order to meet this four- or five-year cycle that comes from the federal or provincial government?

My question to the minister is: does the minister believe there should be multi-year ongoing funding? Does it have to be one big half-billion program every five years, rather than $100 million a year or whatever the sum is — that's just a figure I'm picking out of thin air — that you do on an ongoing basis so that municipalities and regional districts can plan better?

Hon. I. Chong: I understand the intent with which the member is posing that question, and I guess the best way to acknowledge how we can assist local governments is — I would agree — to provide some certainty with respect to what they can expect from other levels of government.

The small community protection grant, as the member will know, is the one area in which the unconditional grant, especially to our small communities, is available. When we doubled the amount a number of years ago, that remains in effect.

The traffic fine revenue-sharing.Again, we can't always predict what that is, but the fact is we made the commitment that 100 percent of net traffic fine revenue-sharing would be returned. At least we have that. I think the municipalities are now at least basing it always on the previous year, expecting that it would hopefully never drop unless their enforcement cuts back.

[1520]

When you're dealing with other levels of government, in our case particularly the federal government, it's not always possible. We go to the table, and we make suggestions. The member will probably know that at the federal-provincial-territorial tables you have that dialogue and discussion as to the kinds of programs that we think are possible or should be considered. Unfortunately, you can't dictate to the federal government the kind of grant program that should exist and should exist in perpetuity.

The infrastructure stimulus program is a prime example. The federal government brought that in at a time when we were all hit with a global economic downturn. They brought that in to enable local communities to continue to put people to work and have communities stay strong and vibrant. They brought in the RInC program. They brought in the knowledge infrastructure program dealing with our post-secondary.

These are programs that they do make…. I wouldn't say unilaterally; they, I guess, make with input from governments. But at the time they announce them, we're not always provided the opportunity to say when they should be introduced.

I can say that there is one area of certainty that we have been able to procure or to, I guess, accommodate with
[ Page 7414 ]
the federal government, and that is the gas tax agreement. The member will probably know that originally it began as a five-year agreement. It's now been extended out to, I believe, 2015.

That would have been an area of fluctuation had we had an agreement whereby the moneys came into the provincial government and then we decided each year how we were going to distribute it. But as the member will know, that money flows directly through the UBCM. They administer the program, and they allow for that distribution.

I think it's a good model, and I hope he would agree that local governments, in particular, like it. That is the one area where the federal government has provided some certainty.

With the provincial government, our level of government, sometimes we do take a look at what we're able to accommodate within our fiscal plan, and we also take a look at what local governments have provided to us in the way of the feedback that they're having the struggles with.

Again, the member will know that the Towns for Tomorrow actually was established as a result of listening to small towns, the ones that he represents as well, when local governments said: "We can't participate in the one-third, one-third, one-third share that is in place. We need something better for us." That's how a number of mayors came forward and said to the Premier: "We need something that might work better for us — 20-80." So the Towns for Tomorrow program was established for towns under 5,000.

Subsequently other towns said. "Hey, we're not under 5,000, but we're a small town as well." So can we accommodate those changes? Again, a new program was introduced to accommodate those requests — towns under 15,000, and I think at 25-75 percent sharing.

It's a bit of a listening exercise as to what can work, what should work and also to work with government's objectives in terms of healthy lifestyles. So for trails and things like that or for reducing greenhouse gases, to get people out of their cars — taking a look at different opportunities.

Programs will be developed from time to time to ask local government to help assist us in meeting the greater provincial goals that we set forward. Certainly, if there was an opportunity to provide certainty, we would like to do that, but we're also challenged by the fact that we don't know how the fiscal situation changes year to year. Wherever possible, we try to introduce a program, especially if we're responsible for it, that we know has at least a two- or three- or four-year life to it.

H. Lali: I thank the minister for the detailed answer. A number of the programs that the minister mentioned…. They're all good programs. I actually don't have any quarrel or question regarding that. I think some of them ought to continue. Towns for Tomorrow, obviously, is utilized by many communities in my constituency and, of course, throughout the province in small communities.

I know the minister said that you can't dictate to the federal government. That's absolutely true. I've been there myself a decade earlier, in a similar position. But I'm not asking the minister to dictate anything to the federal government. Rather, it is to work with the federal government.

I just want to use an example. I know that the provincial ministers responsible for communities meet on a regular basis. I assume it's once a quarter. I know when I was the Minister of Transportation and Highways we met once a quarter, in a different province every quarter. The federal Minister of Transport showed up.

It was a council of provincial-federal transport ministers, so these were these quarterly meetings. There's lots of opportunity to actually have that kind of a meeting with the federal counterparts and for the provincial and the federal counterparts to do that.

[1525]

One of the programs in particular, or a derivative of that, sort of came to fruition after I'd left office. I think it was in the last decade. But when I was the minister, B.C. had a pen to write the paper on the two-cents gas tax that the federal government had brought in under Jean Chrétien's time, when he was Prime Minister, in order to balance the budget.

Well, four or five years later they had balanced the budget, but they kept the program going and were basically collecting $800 million per year out of British Columbia that was going into the provincial coffers. What the provinces were saying — and B.C. had the pen — was to actually have a national highway program, whereas that two-cents gas would revert back to the provinces.

If the feds put in $800 million a year and then leave room for the provinces to put in the two-cents gas tax, that would raise, basically all across, $1.6 billion a year over ten years. It would be a $16 billion project for national highway improvement. A sort of derivative of that came forward later, and I know that the province was able to benefit.

My question to the minister is: does the minister believe…? And will the minister actually work with her other provincial counterparts to lobby the federal government — not to dictate but to lobby — and negotiate with them to say…?

I know the minister said that in the federal-provincial- municipal forum not all communities were able to participate, so some of these other small-town grants have come into place as a result of that. I'm okay with that. What I'm saying is that there still will be federal, provincial and municipal grants coming every four or five or six years.
[ Page 7415 ]

My question, again, to the minister is: is the minister willing to work with her counterparts provincially and the federal counterparts to say, "Look, instead of doing this once every five years, let's do this on an ongoing, multi-year basis so that municipalities have certainty. They can plan for reserves, or they can do their long-term borrowing"?

It makes it easier on them, rather than to having to ramp up property taxes for their constituents one year because they want to capitalize on these tripartite grants that come forward.

Hon. I. Chong: I can assure him that there are always ongoing discussions that take place. However, the meetings that perhaps he had in the past, quarterly…. I can say I have not seen that happen during our time.

[J. van Dongen in the chair.]

There have been the annual federal-provincial-territorial meetings, although throughout the year, oftentimes if there is consideration of what should be on the agenda, staff have the opportunity to belong to working groups, where they discuss what areas of interest should be brought up at the FPT meeting. That is where the thrust of that dialogue takes place.

I have gone to a number of those when I had previously been the minister for local government and had gone to them. All the ministers across the provinces and territories have spoken with a very unified voice, telling the federal government that to improve upon the programs, it would be nice to have certainty so that we would be able to go back to our respective jurisdictions and provide that.

We do continue to work with them for that benefit. I guess one of the benefits of that has been the gas tax agreement, which I mentioned earlier. That comes through to the provinces and, in our case, comes through to UBCM to administer, whereby they actually do have some certainty, knowing that those are those dollars. I realize that provinces are always looking for dollars over and beyond that, but those are the discussions that take place.

The discussion that takes place on infrastructure now is under the Transportation and Infrastructure Minister, and I'm aware that he does have ongoing dialogue. He and I do speak, so I take the minister's comments to heart. Will I make sure that I work closely with him? Absolutely, to make sure that we engage and have those programs available for our local governments.

[1530]

Again, we cannot determine when the federal government is interested in providing a new program, simply because they, too, have their fiscal issues and challenges to work through. If they announce a program, we may have the opportunity to provide input to it prior to it being announced. Until they announce it, we're not able to know exactly what the amounts would be.

Suffice to say, though, that when they announce that, we are always at the table first, and we will take our share and make sure that we don't leave any of those dollars on the table. We will make sure that those benefits will go to our local governments.

I take to heart the member's suggestion, and I certainly will work with my colleagues to make sure we get those benefits to our local governments.

H. Lali: I thank the minister that she also believes in certainty for municipalities and regional districts.

I have the former critic for Community Development and the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake. They have some questions they're going to ask.

S. Fraser: Hello to the minister and her staff. Thanks for providing this wonderful opportunity to ask some questions. As the critic has pointed out, I am the former critic, so this is a bit of a last issue that I was dealing with, to some extent, as critic. I'm hoping you'll give me a little bit of leeway to ask a few questions. It's dealing with the regional growth strategy for Metro Vancouver.

As the minister is probably aware, the livable region strategy, the strategic plan that exists now, was from 1996, I think. It has been reviewed, and the new process with Metro Vancouver has been underway since November of 2007.

This is a difficult process, considering the number of players involved. As the minister is aware, there are 24 different local authorities, two dozen local authorities that are involved and are actually trying to achieve consensus in a growth strategy, which is very difficult.

I know the minister has some municipal experience. That's a challenging one for any of us who have been in the municipal system. Kudos to all of the communities and groups that have been involved. All 24 of them have undauntingly faced that challenge to try to come up with a unanimous decision on where to go in a growth strategy.

With that segue, as the minister may be aware, they have achieved near consensus, where 23 of 24 parties have agreed. Of course, this is after years of work. There were 46 public meetings held to facilitate developing this larger growth strategy, which is certainly in the interest of all the communities and all the groups involved.

I believe almost 2,000 members of the public attended the meetings. Of course, it involved stakeholders in the business community, municipalities, regional districts and other groups, too, of course, including TransLink. It also was on the list. I was surprised to see that, but then as I thought about it, it made eminent sense.

With just one community having some trouble with this, there was a request for binding arbitration at one point. I think there was merit to that request, considering
[ Page 7416 ]
that it's also an election year for municipal government. The chance that this could fall off the table would put all of that work, all of the expense and what's arguably a very, very successful plan…. There are 23 out of 24 communities and groups that have endorsed it.

Would the minister, first of all, just comment on…? I'm not sure if she's got all this, but is she aware that the clock is ticking, with the November municipal elections looming very soon?

Hon. I. Chong: I just want to share with the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim that I absolutely am aware that there are November municipal and local government elections taking place and trust that this matter is able to be resolved. Again, it's not up to myself to absolutely come to the conclusion that I think they may.

[1535]

I am familiar with the fact that the regional growth strategy that Metro Vancouver is working on has been a long time in the works to replace the livable region strategic plan, which has outlived its time. I guess that's the best way to describe it.

When I was confronted with the conclusion that 23 of the 24 local governments had reached consensus and I received a letter to consider a process to allow us to get to the final consensus agreement, which is always the best way to go, I carefully considered it and did suggest that the non-binding dispute resolution process would be a better way to go.

After careful consideration — I discussed it with my staff — I had really thought about how all the other 23 came to a consensus, and I believe that the remaining local government would be able, if given the amount of time, to do so.

I just wanted to share with the member that that's the reason I went to non-binding, in case he was trying to determine why I didn't accept going to binding right away. I just wanted to give them that time.

So now Metro Vancouver and the local government in question are in the process of designing the non-binding dispute resolution process, as required under the act. I know that they have made some progress, but I understand they are still exchanging documents, even as late as perhaps today. Hopefully, they'll be able to reach a process of non-binding dispute resolution.

I hear they're very close, but I haven't been given the absolute confirmation that they're there yet. I had asked that they try to start their process by the middle of the month. I know we're past that day, but when you are confronted with the fact that they're very close there, you want to do as much as you can to give them that time to come to that process that they all agree upon.

You know it'll be a much better result as a consequence of that. I haven't received the final confirmation that they're there yet, but I understand we're very, very close.

S. Fraser: Thank you to the minister for that. I appreciate your answer, and I'm somewhat heartened by that, because we're all kind of crossing our fingers that this won't fall off.

Now, I'm not entirely sure how this works. In a lot of these public processes they're almost a quasi-legal process. I know it's like zoning and such. When a process has come to its completion and the public hearings and such have been finalized and done with, if those processes are opened up again, in some cases they can actually invalidate or prejudice the process.

Is that the case here? Is this a similar case to a rezoning, where — once the public hearings are finished, once the public and business community and the other communities have had a chance for full input and they've moved to the resolution of it, once the process is closed — if it were to be opened again, this would invalidate, potentially put at risk, the public processes to date?

[1540]

Hon. I. Chong: What generally occurs in this…. This is why there has been some time taken. The parties to the agreement — Metro Vancouver and, of course, the local government, which has not yet signed on — are currently working towards designing the process. In that discussion they're having, the approach they're taking right now is to agree upon those items that are either in dispute or those items that they wish to look at. There will have to be some agreement as to what it is they're going to look at.

It will not be full out, open everything, go back to square one, and let's start all over again. I don't think anybody actually wants that to take place right now. That's why I agreed to the non-binding dispute resolution process. I had heard that there were some issues in dispute. There were some areas of concern, but they were not that large and broad that a binding process would necessarily facilitate a good, open discussion of it.

Going to a non-binding process means that it also allows Metro Vancouver and the local government to really identify and put on the table those areas. Everyone's clear on what it is they're going to discuss and what they're going to resolve, so that that local government can sign on and that therefore it can truly be a fully consensus agreement for a regional growth strategy.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I guess I'm going to seek a little bit more clarification on that issue and just touch on another one too.

The 46 public meetings, the 2,000 members of the public, the business community, etc., that were involved and all of the discussions with municipal councils. There were 38 different meetings with municipal councils that participated in this — a large, large process — and presentations and stakeholders of every colour and stripe.
[ Page 7417 ]

That process concluded. The public consultation process concluded as part of this whole growth strategy process. That consultation process was deemed concluded in late November and by early December, with a formal public hearing held at four venues around the region.

Again, can the minister confirm and maybe consult with staff? If there were a suggestion that that be reopened again by any party, it would be a problem, would it not? Wouldn't that potentially invalidate the work that was closed and concluded?

Hon. I. Chong: In case I wasn't clear, I don't expect that we would go back to square one. The parties currently are designing the process. They will make a determination, because they are the affected parties, as to what they believe are the areas in dispute, the areas that they wish to discuss.

I have been advised that there are some limited areas that they wish to look at. It's not as broad as going back to the very beginning of developing the regional growth strategy. That's why I'm understanding that they are very close to agreeing to what is to be determined for public meetings or hearings, what areas of discussion are going to take place.

I'm looking forward to their advising me as soon as possible, because I think everybody knows that it's in their best interest to start moving that process along as quickly as we can.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I'm an optimist on this one. We were so close. It's 23 out of 24 that have achieved consensus. I guess consensus only happens when it's 24 out of 24, but it's near consensus now.

The minister has suggested that there has to be an agreement with the parties. I don't like the hypothetical-type question, but if we approach the election date in November and one party out of 24 is a holdout on some issue, is there an acknowledgment that 23 out of 24 could be sufficient — that that would be consensus enough to proceed and not put at risk the entire growth strategy, as might well happen if it flows into a municipal election in the fall?

[1545]

Hon. I. Chong: First, perhaps to just explain that the Community Charter legislation with respect to regional growth strategies does require that there is closure on the matter. What is set out in our legislation or the authority upon which we can deal with regional growth strategy is a number of steps.

Right now we're looking at the non-binding dispute process. If we are still unsuccessful after a period of time, we would then consider arbitration. That could take a couple of forms. It's a rather complicated process as to what form it would take. If the member would like to know the various steps and how we get through that, I'd be happy to set up a briefing with him and the staff to understand all the steps. But at some point there will be closure on the regional growth strategy.

I don't want to speculate either, as the member has said, as to where this is going to end up. We could find that the non-binding dispute resolution is the only step that is required. I'm an optimist as well. The fact that I know there's ongoing dialogue to determine and design the best process that the parties are doing indicates to me that there is certainly a willingness to get a discussion going, a dialogue going, to deal with those areas of dispute.

K. Corrigan: Well, we have the ex-critic who is asking questions and is very knowledgable in this area. Of course, I represent a riding in the Lower Mainland, which will be shaped by the decisions and what the plan is. It has been quite an accomplishment over the last four years to get 23 out of 24 municipalities or groups that are affected, including First Nations, that have signed on to this.

I would note also that 90 of the hundred or so municipal councillors voted in favour. So not only did every council except for one support this, but the support within the councils was overwhelming as well. This is a plan that has been lauded as being progressive, balanced, that will address transportation, zoning, the shape of these communities.

[1550]

It is very important not only for GVRD, or Metro Vancouver, but for all of British Columbia, when you consider that half the population or so of this province is in the Metro area and how it grows at a time when there will be significant population growth, how it will be shaped by this plan. So there's a huge commitment.

I think it's important to stress that the municipality that is now not supporting the plan or has concerns about it has been involved in very key ways, including being on the planning committee, so it was a real surprise at the end of the process when concerns were raised about it.

I just wanted to ask two tandem questions. I'll wait for the answer, and then I think we'll be finished on this issue. The minister noted something about discussions and further discussions on what those hearings would be. My understanding is that this is between the parties. If it does open up to wider public hearings again, my understanding is that that would jeopardize the whole process and take it back and would jeopardize all those votes of the individual municipalities and open it up again.

I would like some clarification on that, because I agree it is within the parties, but if there start to be public hearings again, we could be back to square one. So I'd like some confirmation on that.
[ Page 7418 ]

Hon. I. Chong: I want to reiterate that as the minister, I'm not dictating on what should or should not occur. The parties who are impacted — or Metro Vancouver, in particular, and the local government — currently are in discussion to design a process by which they are going to reach consensus. I'm waiting to hear what that is. If they decide on a mutually agreeable process by which to get to consensus, then that's, I think, what we're all anticipating.

My role is not to say what they should or should not do, especially when they are, I believe, very close to coming to agreement on what it is they are going to be putting on the table as areas in dispute that they can discuss.

K. Corrigan: Well, I take comfort in that, because it sounds to me like what the minister is saying is that the minister is not intending to get involved and interfere in the process. I see you nodding your head — or shaking your head and saying no, you don't. So I do appreciate that.

Not a question, but I would just add to what my colleague has stated. I think it very important, looking forward, that the minister, having made the decision not to go to binding arbitration…. That was an alternative and I believe would have ensured that this decision would have been completed and the matter closed, as the minister says it needs to be. That would have all happened before elections, which could have jeopardized the whole four-year process.

I would add my encouragement to the minister for having tried — and I understand, certainly, why the minister would do this — to see if we can do this through a consensus process, non-binding or dispute resolution process. If that doesn't work, then the minister again can be the facilitator on behalf of the 23 municipalities and do what is necessary in order to make sure that this is completed by November of 2011.

[1555]

G. Gentner: I have a few quick questions on LocalMotion. It's been well received by many communities who have been able to access the funds. I just want to get an update, first of all, from the minister, relative to how much funding has been committed to date, how many projects were financed and how many are complete. Has the whole funding been spent? What's left?

Hon. I. Chong: The LocalMotion program has now closed. It has concluded. It was a program that was available for 2006-2009. It was a $40 million program with a cost-sharing of 50-50 to the maximum provincial share, I believe, of $500,000. I'll have a quick look at that in a minute.

The total number of proponents who were funded through this: 122. Our provincial share, as I say, was $40 million, but the total project cost was in excess of about $103 million. So while we were only able to commit to 50 percent of it, in some cases the project was greater than the doubling of the amount, and of course, we made the maximum commitment level there.

If the member would like, I can give him a list of all the projects, if he's interested. I think it's available on our website, but if he's interested, I could send that over to him.

G. Gentner: I have access. I can find it.

How much money? Was the total $40 million spent? Was there any surplus?

Hon. I. Chong: No.

G. Gentner: One or two quick questions on this. I just want to know so that maybe we can close the account, so to speak. The Auditor General obviously had some problems on the performance and guarantees — moneys that were sent to communities but weren't spent. Is the ministry conducting any further performance criteria on what happened to that funding?

[1600]

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I want to confirm to the member that there are no surplus dollars left in the LocalMotion grant program. It is now closed.

I also want to assure him about the Auditor General report with respect to his infrastructure audit recommendations. We have, in fact, committed to act on all of the infrastructure audit recommendations and have already taken a number of steps in part, which is to post the LocalMotion and Towns for Tomorrow progress reports to the web and also to prepare similar annual public progress reporting for all the provincially funded–only programs. Those are a number of things that the Auditor General had requested, which we have now done. But there are no surplus dollars left in the program. It's closed.

G. Gentner: So we're still waiting for progress on the performance to the minister's website. Therefore, do we know exactly when this job will be completed?

Hon. I. Chong: Perhaps I can ask the member for clarification, if I haven't got his response correct. My understanding is that one of the recommendations from the Auditor General was in fact to post this information on the web. My understanding is that the LocalMotion program and the Towns for Tomorrow program are all current and up to date on the web.

If there is something in particular that he is noticing is not, I can certainly ask staff to have a look at it. But my understanding is that it's up to date at this point as to the information they have available. So if I'm missing points of his question, I'd ask him to give me further clarification.
[ Page 7419 ]

G. Gentner: I'll raise it in Public Accounts. I'm sure the file is pretty much closed.

Cycling projects, therefore funding from your ministry, are no longer in your purview. If I have it right, it's now strictly the job of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure to finance such projects.

Hon. I. Chong: When we were responsible for the LocalMotion program, that may have included some cycling projects. But in terms of the cycling program, that was previously under Transportation and Infrastructure. I'm afraid I can't provide the member with an accurate response on whether or not they still have the program or whether Jobs, Tourism and Innovation has the program. The cycling program in the past has been through Transportation and Infrastructure.

G. Gentner: I wanted to get some clarity as to some changes in various roles of ministries. The previous Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport had a very different mandate. I'd like to know, relative to this ministry's role in sports: how does it differ from the responsibilities involved with the previous Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport?

[1605]

Hon. I. Chong: Generally speaking, the area of sport that previously was in Healthy Living and Sport has been moved over to this ministry. The parts that related to sport but also had to deal with health promotion, such as the ActNow initiative, didn't move over to this ministry and have gone to the Ministry of Health. So that's, perhaps, the most significant change that took place when the Ministry of Healthy Living was de-established and the changes were made.

G. Gentner: Well, then, I'll ask a different question, similar to what I originally asked. What programs have remained together through the transition from Healthy Living and Sport to the new Community, Sport and Cultural Development?

Hon. I. Chong: All the sport programs have continued in this ministry. The three largest areas, the more significant areas, of this program area of sport would relate to participation, would relate to high performance, would relate to events.

G. Gentner: What is the ministry doing post–Olympic Games to build on the success of the games and promote sports in the province?

Hon. I. Chong: The member will know that in Budget 2010 there was an announcement of the sport legacy fund that was established, which was to provide an opportunity to take a look at how we could increase participation. That was an important decision that was made to build on the momentum of the Olympics, to see how our provincial sports organization in particular could find ways to increase participation in some sports and also to take a look at building the next generation of our athletes, who we want to do well and perform well.

The fund last year was able to provide additional dollars to a number of our sports organizations. We are monitoring how that has taken shape and whether or not they have seen a rise in memberships and, therefore, a rise in participation and activity level that is important throughout the province.

Before we embark on the second year to those organizations, we will need to make sure that given those additional resources, they were, in fact, able to produce some of those results. Obviously, if we find that that's not going to take place, then we are going to have to redirect our energies to make sure that we can find ways to support those organizations who are able to, as I say, increase participation, take a look at the high-performance areas, as well as events that take place that bring in athletes, and also allow for the competition that I think so many of our athletes wish to see.

G. Gentner: I have just one last question. I have some other anxious members on this side. Well, I'll roll two questions into one. That's not cheating — is it?

Just the status of the sport and arts legacy fund, if you may. Also, it would appear that the gaming grant funds that are now being used for school-based programs seem to me to previously have been covered by provincial funding from other sources. Can the minister explain this change?

[1610]

Hon. I. Chong: With respect to the sport and arts legacy fund, as I've indicated, this was a program that was announced in Budget 2010 to be a three-year program with the distinct, I guess, requirement to find ways to increase sport participation, to build on our cultural experience that we had as a result of the Olympics. I think the member will know that it was provided as a three-year program to be able to see, year to year, how we, in fact, use those funds to do exactly that.

We've just concluded the first year from those grants. We are evaluating — on how we have been successful and maybe some areas where we may not have achieved the kinds of results or outcomes we wanted — prior to being able to make a determination on how we go forward in year 2 and then subsequently in year 3. At this time we have not yet made a distribution, if that's what the member is looking for, because we, as I say, need to find out some of those results.

With respect to the community gaming grants, what I can say is that the distribution now coming through this
[ Page 7420 ]
ministry…. The member will know that the $120 million that was distributed in last fiscal has always been distributed in the manner that it has been in the past. But with the additional $15 million that was provided at the end of the fiscal year — where the parent advisory councils, in particular, received additional dollars — where they previously received $20 per student, it's now up to $25 per student.

That does go towards extracurricular activities and some of the arts programs that the parent advisory councils wish to fund. So that has not changed. Funding has been provided from the community gaming grant programs to PACs, which then provide for extracurricular sports programs. That is still in place.

H. Lali: I just want to shift the focus to the Municipal Act.

In 2008 the B.C. Liberal government amended legislation for the municipal election that focused predominantly on regulating third-party advertising but left many loopholes that lead to irregularities and demands for change.

The 2008 legislation failed on a number of fronts. It did not impose any overall spending limits. It allowed anonymous donations of up to $50, but it didn't place any limit on the total amount of anonymous donations that a campaign could accept. It restricted access to the financial disclosure of campaign contributions that candidates are required to file, unless the government approved them to be released by law — unless local government approved them.

It also placed more restriction on corporate or union donations, even though they're banned at the federal level. As per our NDP policy, we introduced amendments to this effect, but they were defeated by the government.

I want to, also, just point out to the minister that as for anonymous donations, irregularities in the 2008 municipal elections gave rise to several court challenges and also to some criminal investigations as well. In Summerland candidates were accused of receiving anonymous donations in violation of the Local Government Act. In West Vancouver an unregistered third party purchased newspaper ads endorsing candidates.

[1615]

In Central Saanich citizens complained to police about unregistered organizations campaigning on behalf of local candidates, on-file disclosure statements and other irregularities. The RCMP recommended 19 charges be laid, but the Crown declined. Similar allegations in Langley came to nothing as well.

Campaign spending limits, donation regulations and disclosure requirements were also top of mind for Vancouver's Mayor Robertson, who said on May 20, 2010, in the Vancouver Sun: "Vancouver's last two elections have been very costly and have lacked the transparency that should be part of the elections process. We've got way too much money wrapped up in our campaigns."

I also want to quote Bob Penner of Strategic Communications, May 4, 2010, in the Vancouver Sun: "The municipal election spending regulations in B.C. are amongst the worst and in desperate need of being fixed. The current rules allow for too much campaign spending, too high individual donations and not nearly enough disclosure."

In 2009, in response to the failure of the 2008 legislative amendments and also calls for change, the Liberal government established the Local Government Elections Task Force, a panel of MLAs and representatives of the Union of B.C. Municipalities. They were charged with drafting new rules for campaign spending, political donations, electoral terms and violations enforcement. The task force was chaired by the then Minister of Community and Rural Development, the Liberal MLA for Kootenay East and also Harry Nyce, who was the president of the UBCM.

So my question is: does this government still intend to implement all 31 of the task force's recommendations?

Hon. I. Chong: To the member: I appreciate the spirit with which he brings up the challenges in our local government elections, which goes to the heart of the reason why the task force was set up. It was to make sure that the areas of concern that we were hearing actually were being heard throughout the province as well.

The task force did identify, as he's indicated, that areas of campaign financing, of third-party advertising and of disclosure were ones that resonated through communities throughout the province. As a result, as the member has indicated, the task force did come up with a report. There were 31 recommendations. I have said publicly and will say again that the government is committed to implementing all the recommendations.

The difficulty, of course, that I think…. I don't know if this is the member's question that we will be following up: why weren't they introduced in time for the current elections? In my discussions with the president of UBCM…. The executive back in April advised that these were the most comprehensive changes that have ever been introduced in a decade in terms of changing how the local government elections would be taking shape.

When I met with him in April I was already hearing that some people were embarking on their re-election strategies and campaigns and that if we had brought in legislation, they fell outside of it, and it could present a problem. As disappointed as they were, the UBCM executive and president did agree that we can ensure that we have the right legislation in place in time for the 2014 local government elections. We have committed to that.

I look upon this as a good outcome, and I hope the member will agree. What we can do is take away real
[ Page 7421 ]
data from these current elections with respect to the magnitude of changes that have taken shape, even since 2008 and 2011, to put in place those recommendations for 2014.

[1620]

The task force came to these recommendations, but I can assure the member that I think it's important that our rural and remote communities and our large urban centres also have an understanding of what this means.

In order to put these in place we would have to develop guidebooks and handouts available for everyone concerned with local governments. Whether they're a third-party supporter or whether they are the candidate themselves or a candidate seeking re-election, information is critical. Given the time limits that were available to put that information out, it was thought best to bring the entire package in for 2014.

In speaking with the UBCM executive, I had asked whether they thought there were some areas of particular concern that could be brought forward. But the discussion ended up with the conclusion that, no, the entire package needs to be brought forward together. Because it was such a comprehensive package of recommendations requiring a substantial amount of legislative drafting, they agreed that 2014 would be the target date for this. We could bring in the legislation before then but certainly in time for the 2014 municipal elections, local government elections.

H. Lali: The government has had ample time since the report was done to draft the legislation and bring it into the House. I'm wondering, and I ask the minister: how much work was actually done towards bringing forward the package? And did the new Premier, Christy Clark, put a kibosh on all of this and change the entire plan, not to bring it in for the November 2011 elections?

Hon. I. Chong: I want to acknowledge that there was disappointment that these recommendations were not brought forward in legislation, but again, I want to reiterate that these 31 recommendations that the task force provided to government would have been the largest package of changes ever to the local government election rules in almost 20 years.

I don't believe there have been such significant changes made to local government elections since 1994. They were very large. I'm advised that, you know, it wasn't just going to be a simple few pages of drafting. There were going to be many, many pages that needed to be developed and prepared.

The ministry has a policy group that had been working on this fairly constantly, regularly throughout. They were consulting with Elections B.C. and with the B.C. School Trustees Association. As the member will know, they are also impacted and affected by local government elections.

At the end of the day I guess the best way to describe it is that these rules would have to apply to elections for over 1,660 positions in over 250 local government bodies. In 2008 alone we know that in that local election there were over 3,000 candidates who ran for those 1,660 positions. There would have been a tremendous amount of communication required to provide this information to those seeking election and re-election. There would have been training that also needed to take place with the local government representatives in local governments who took care of local elections.

[1625]

For that reason, as I say, we were working on this diligently but also knew that the amount of work was starting to get into the time frame where people were starting to make decisions on running for the upcoming November elections. The opportunity to be able to present that and ensure that people did not fall outside of rules that were then subsequently brought in was of concern.

In speaking to the UBCM and UBCM executive, I advised them of the challenges we had. They agreed that they wanted to ensure that we had these significant changes put in legislation in the correct way, that they were easily understood by all and that whatever training was going to be made available could be made available to their local council representatives.

As I say, I understand the disappointment. There was not a directive that we not proceed. It was really the amount of work that was required.

I appreciate the member feeling that there was ample time to do it. I'm advised by staff that they have been working on this and had been working on it since the recommendations were provided, but it was still requiring a substantial amount of work from the entire team.

H. Lali: I don't believe for one minute that staff are the problem, or folks that work in the ministry. I think the problem lies with the priorities of this government, what this government wants to do and the stalling tactics that have taken place.

In March of 2010 the then Minister of Community Development is quoted as saying: "There is a concern that the public's confidence in the electoral process may have been damaged in some parts of the province." That's a direct quote from the then minister, who is from the East Kootenays.

It was in October 2009, in response to the failure of the 2008 legislative amendments, that the calls for change came in, and the government established the Local Government Elections Task Force.

In May of 2010 the task force released a report containing the 31 recommendations. In July 2010 the B.C. Liberal government, this government, actually gave a green light to all 31 of the task force recommendations,
[ Page 7422 ]
to be implemented in time for the 2010 municipal government fall election.

I want to quote the then Minister of Community and Rural Development at that time. He's out of Kelowna. He said: "We expect the legislation to be introduced next spring, in time for the local government elections in November 2011." This is from a news release from the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development dated 07-07-2010.

Then the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, who is present in this House and listening attentively and who was on the task force whose report is being submitted for cabinet approval, is quoted as saying: "If approved, it is slated to take effect in time for the next local elections scheduled for November 2011." This is in the Williams Lake Tribune, page 6.

I know the member is looking at me very attentively. This is eighth of June, 2010, that she's quoted as saying that.

When you look at it, why the new Premier might have been a little bit fearful of introducing it — I think this is where the kibosh came, not from the staff in the ministry, as the minister is saying — is that some of the key task force recommendations were….

I'll just put them in point form: lengthen the term for municipal office from three to four years; establish expense limits for all campaign participants — e.g., electors, electoral organizations and third-party advertisers; regulate third-party advertisers, requiring them to register and disclose expenses and contributions; ban anonymous contributions; require sponsorship information on all election advertising; shorten the time for filing campaign finance disclosure statements to 90 days post-election; establish a central role for Elections B.C. in enforcement of campaign finance rules and in making campaign finance disclosure statements electronically accessible; establish a separate act for campaign finance rules in local elections.

The task force also recommended no corporate vote, an issue which was a contentious issue throughout the consultation process itself.

Again, I would like to say to the minister that even after this report was made public…. It's 12 months. That's a full year's time that this government has had — a full year. Now, how long, actually, does this government need to draft and implement a set of recommendations?

[1630]

Does this not demonstrate a lack of commitment, capacity or priority on the part of this government?

Hon. I. Chong: I want to again reiterate, as I have stated publicly at a number of meetings I've been at and to UBCM executive and the UBCM president, that we are and remain committed to the task force recommendations. That is, I have stated that we will proceed to ensure that these changes are ready for the 2014 elections.

Again, I want to just say that I realize there has been disappointment. There had been great desire to have this in place for the 2011 elections, but the magnitude of change is significant.

I appreciate that the member is not questioning the dedication and devotion of the public service who are working on this, because he's absolutely right. They were working on this, but even as they were working through these comprehensive changes, they knew that they were of such a magnitude that they were requiring more time.

They needed to ensure that everything was done right, that the other agencies or other affected bodies would have been able to be consulted, ensured that these were done right. I mentioned Elections B.C. They are very much going to be a part of the changes going forward. B.C. School Trustees Association — they, too, are very much affected by these changes that are made.

We want to make sure that everyone is ready to go with the changes. That also requires, therefore, for us to be fair in ensuring that those who are running for elections and those who are supporting those running for elections know the rules and know them well in advance, and that was not possible. Even as late as last fall….

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

The member has read into the record a number of these recommendations. I appreciate that. One of those recommendations that I understand he quoted was the changing of the term limits from three to four years. That itself was voted down last September by the UBCM members. So as I say, there are sometimes very significant changes, the implications of which, when you start drafting or start putting in place…. People realize that requires additional work that is done.

I can assure the member that I was not directed by the Premier, as he's alluded, to not proceed with the recommendations. Far be it from that. In fact, I was looking at the amount of work and what needed to be presented to the House in order for this to be brought forward, and there was just not going to be the amount of time to be able to comprehensively roll out this legislation and at the same time have the informational education, the communication information, necessary for those running for elected office made available.

As I had undertaken this in this role in March and met with UBCM executive in April, I was already hearing of people making decisions about their elections for this fall. So I felt it was the appropriate decision to take and direction to take to advise that I would not be able to bring in the legislation this spring but would also work with UBCM and their executive and also take a look at the 2011 data that I hope to gather and ensure that we have everything right and available for the 2014 elections.
[ Page 7423 ]

H. Lali: The minister talks about the UBCM defeating in a motion the recommendation of going from a three- to a four-year term. Okay, so that leaves 30 recommendations instead of 31.

I know the minister didn't use these exact words, but judging from the comments — that there was time that was needed and all the work that has to be done — I think the minister is alluding to the lack of resources, even though she did not use that terminology herself in terms of bringing this together. She used the terminology "magnitude of change." So it's just the change that's going to be so immense to be able to do this.

If you couple that with a lack of resources…. The government's had no problem finding resources when they're going to pay off a couple of guys who pleaded guilty in the B.C. Liberal corruption scandal just a few months back. They found the $6 million. But the government can't find the resources to do something that the municipalities…. The people at the municipal level have been asking for these kinds of changes for such a long time. What it really boils down to is excuses for a magnitude of change or a lack of resources.

My question to the minister is: what does this actually reveal about B.C. Liberal commitment to transparency and accountability?

[1635]

Hon. I. Chong: I indicated to the member in my previous response that the team of the policy branch that deals with this within the ministry had been working on this but, in doing their work, realized the comprehensive nature of what would have been required, the significant legislation that would have been required.

I also indicated that, as he has read into the record and made aware, Elections B.C. also needed to be involved and engaged in some of these changes. As the member will know, Elections B.C. was rather busy in the last little while as well. They weren't exactly available at a drop of a dime to be able to discuss with us all the necessary changes that would take place. I'm not giving that as an excuse; I just want the member to know that. I just wanted to explain that in bringing forward changes of this significance, there did require an amount of work, an amount of time, to make sure that we get this right.

Again, the individuals who work in our ministry, who know the act, who know of the task force work, who know what needs to be in place, were working on this. They certainly had the ability to do this. But again, when we made a determination that there were people already taking a look at running for office and incurring expenses and even, perhaps, looking at various contracted services, the chance of having them run afoul of any new legislation we brought in could have occurred. We wanted to make sure, as we said, that we had the right information and the training manuals out there so that everybody was fully aware of what the rules were.

I understand the disappointment from this member. I've heard the disappointment from others as well. But we are working and continue to work to put forward these recommendations so that they will be ready for 2014 local government elections. That is the commitment we've made.

H. Lali: From the report of the Local Government Elections Task Force, May 20, 2010, that I referred to earlier, I just want to read into the record a statement made by the Minister of Community and Rural Development at the time, who is the member for Kootenay East. This is actually the covering letter here, signed by both himself and Harry Nyce, the president of the UBCM.

"These recommendations propose a significant yet balanced set of changes to improve local government elections by ensuring accountability, enhancing transparency, strengthening compliance and enforcement, increasing accessibility and expanding education and advice. The vast majority of local elections are effectively administered. These recommendations focus on the area where the task force found gaps — namely, campaign finance rules."

Now, this government has committed to establishing a more central role for Elections B.C. in the enforcement of campaign finance rules. What resources does the minister intend to provide to Elections B.C. in order for it to carry out its role? In other words, what increased budget will Elections B.C. have in its new role in the enforcement of local government election campaign finance law?

Hon. I. Chong: I appreciate the member reading into the record the message from the task force, and he has also confirmed that these are significant changes. That's the comment that I've been making. They are significant — the largest changes ever in about 20 years that we're making to local government elections. For that reason, they required the comprehensive work that needed to be done and the discussions that needed to take place with those other affected parties.

So with respect to Elections B.C., that is not within our vote. I think it's appropriate to say that there will need to be discussions with Elections B.C. to determine what the scope of their work will be. I can't speculate on what that will be, but those discussions will likely provide us with an understanding of the amount of work that may take place. I'm sure that at that time they will make a submission as to what their financial requirements will be, but that will not come under this ministry's area.

[1640]

H. Lali: I just want to now turn the attention to Sun Peaks Mountain Resort Municipality. If staff need to be changed, we'll allow the minister to be able to do that. In the meantime, I'll read a statement into the record.

Sun Peaks was incorporated as a resort municipality on June 28, 2010. Obviously, it has been the subject
[ Page 7424 ]
of some court actions. The First Nations in the area took the matter to the court. Chief Judy Wilson of the Neskonlith Indian band said that the band had a host of concerns that hadn't been addressed, including access to land for hunting and fishing, which she argued has been restricted by further development on the mountain itself.

There had been outstanding aboriginal land claims on Sun Peaks' incorporated territory, and so local aboriginal activists staged protests and blockades to protest the expansion of the Sun Peaks Resort on what they argued was their traditional territory.

In her decision, Justice Catherine Bruce of the B.C. Supreme Court ruled that the provincial government had not fulfilled its constitutional duty to consult with the Adams Lake Indian band over the incorporation of Sun Peaks Mountain Resort as a resort municipality. She says, in her view: "It was not a reasonable consultation process."

Justice Bruce found that the Adams Lake Indian band had a good prima facie claim to aboriginal title at Sun Peaks. Robert Janes, the Adams Lake band lawyer, says that the band actually wants to protect habitat in certain areas with a significant spiritual meaning and also "make sure the First Nations aren't bystanders to the development of their lands."

The provincial government was ordered to actually begin a new consultation process with the band. However, the municipality was allowed to remain incorporated. Now, although the band was seeking to have the incorporation set aside, Judge Bruce did not involve retracting the letters patent that actually created the resort municipality.

Now, instead of actually getting into a process of consultation with the First Nations, the provincial government appealed the court ruling. I'd like to ask the minister why.

Hon. I. Chong: I hope the member can appreciate that, as he knows, the matter is before the courts. I am not able to discuss it further. His question was why the decision was made to appeal. I'll just say that the decision was made by the Attorney General.

H. Lali: The minister doesn't want to discuss the details, and that's fine. The B.C. Liberals, after initially challenging the Nisga'a treaty in court, backed off. They wanted to have a referendum on aboriginal rights. Then they decided one day that they were actually going to enter a new relationship with First Nations people, and that was followed by the new era of reconciliation.

Not consulting with aboriginal people and then forging ahead with the plans — does this now not fly in the face of the so-called new relationship and the new era of conciliation when the B.C. Liberal government does not want to get into any consultation process with the First Nations?

[1645]

Hon. I. Chong: I just want to again clarify that as the appeal is before the courts, it's not a question of not wanting to. I'm just not permitted to discuss the matter of the appeal.

With respect to how our ministry interacts with local government, I can say that we have funded UBCM I believe $50,000 a year to engage in these community-to-community forums. I know the member is aware of it. I have heard nothing but great responses about that funding that has allowed for local governments to engage and have dialogue with our First Nations communities, and we'll continue to do that.

We in this ministry do take it upon ourselves…. When we're dealing with areas that impact our First Nations, we have a policy that we do make every effort to contact and discuss with them, if there are areas of concern. I can tell you that that continues on, and we will continue to do that.

We have a directorate on First Nations as well — local government relations. So as I say, I believe we've moved a long way from where we perhaps were even a dozen years ago.

If the member has more questions with respect to all the areas of improvements that we have made and the opportunities we have provided to our First Nations communities, I'm sure he can check with the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation for a list of areas that have yielded great benefits to our First Nations communities.

H. Lali: I want to talk about this particular instance, because it's fresh and it's right before us right now. I want to ask the minister: was any attempt made to consult or initiate discussion with the Adams Lake Indian band between the March 4 Supreme Court decision and the province's April decision to appeal the ruling?

Hon. I. Chong: If the question from the member is whether we are interested in developing and building good relationships with our First Nations communities, then the answer, obviously, is yes. We will continue to do that, as I've indicated. We do that as a matter of policy when we are able to make contact with our First Nations communities. We do it regularly, and we will continue to do that. Because we are committed to building, as well, a relationship between Sun Peaks resort municipality and the Adams Lake Indian band, we're going to continue to be able to engage in areas of mutual interest and benefit.

I understand, as well, that the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation is working with the Adams Lake Indian band and other First Nations in the area on the master development agreement for Sun Peaks. That's an area, I
[ Page 7425 ]
think, of considerable interest. I believe work continues in that area, and the dialogue continues.

In very succinct terms, we are certainly interested in and committed to building a strong relationship with our First Nations communities.

H. Lali: That wasn't my question. My question was actually quite specific, and I'll repeat it again for the minister. Was any attempt made to consult or initiate discussions with the Adams Lake Indian band — not every other band in the world, the Adams Lake Indian band — between the March 4 Supreme Court decision and the province's April decision to appeal the ruling?

[1650]

Hon. I. Chong: Well, I can't speak for any other ministries in government whether there were any discussions. I'm not aware and my staff have advised me they're not aware that this ministry had any discussions between the date that he mentions of March 4 and the time that the appeal was launched.

H. Lali: Does the province believe that it consulted adequately and meaningfully with the Adams Lake Indian band over the incorporation of Sun Peaks Mountain Resort Municipality?

Hon. I. Chong: That's the question before the courts, and that's the matter of the appeal currently underway.

H. Lali: Well, the minister maybe can answer this. Can the province unilaterally engage in land rezoning and incorporation despite there being extant aboriginal land claims to an area? What policy is there around the duty to consult as it pertains to this specific case?

Hon. I. Chong: I will provide the member a response in general terms. As I've indicated, I can't get into the specifics of this particular case because of what is currently before the courts.

When government makes a statutory decision, there is a policy on consultation with First Nations that is in place. In particular, with local governments there are guidelines for local government consultation that take shape. For example, when there are things like boundary extensions, there is a guideline that we need to follow with local government to make sure that we have follow-through on those consultations.

I'm just going to provide that in a general way so that the member is aware that in our local government relationships with First Nations, there are guidelines in place that we do use to engage in consultation.

H. Lali: Let me try this in a different way. Can the minister tell me: during the process leading up to the incorporation of the Sun Peaks municipality, was there anyone assigned from government, from either this ministry or aboriginal affairs, to actually engage in consultations with the First Nations in the area?

[1655]

Hon. I. Chong: With respect to the consultation, I want to say — because this is a matter of public record — that during the incorporation, there were two years of First Nations engagement and consultation. There were staff assigned to that from this ministry, and if necessary, there were other ministries involved. They might have assigned staff, as well, with respect to what consultation took place.

H. Lali: Could the minister tell me: who were the staff members, what were their titles, and were they out of Victoria, or were they there from the region?

Hon. I. Chong: I can't list off all others that may have been involved, because if required, we do receive support from staff in the Ministry of Attorney General and other ministries.

From this ministry, the individual that was involved was Cathy Watson. She is the director of First Nations and local government relations, and I believe she is located in Victoria here.

H. Lali: One of the complaints and why this is all in such a mess is obviously because the First Nations were not consulted, and the courts agree with them that there was no meaningful consultation. One of the reasons that I've been given, as I talk to different parties in the area…. They're telling me that the person or persons assigned by the provincial government to do the so-called consultation did not have the power or the authority to be able to make any kind of decisions.

Now, I've started at the outset, and I firmly believe this, and the minister knows I do: the staff who work for the government, whether they're in the regional level or in Victoria or elsewhere, are some of the best anywhere in North America. I firmly believe that. They're there because they believe in the public service.

This is not a knock on any individual, but what I have been told is that in terms of the consultation, there was nobody there from the provincial government of any consequence, with a title that had the power behind it to be able to make certain decisions or to affect things as they were being talked about or negotiated.

Does the minister not agree that, had the province sent in somebody — perhaps somebody of the calibre of the people sitting beside you; the assistant deputy minister, deputy minister — whether it's from this ministry or the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations or from the Attorney General's department, we would not be involved in this kind of mess?

[1700]
[ Page 7426 ]

Hon. I. Chong: I just want to, first of all, acknowledge and thank the member for recognizing that the people who work in the ministry, the public service, do work diligently and take their jobs very seriously and offer the very best that they can. I thank him for his acknowledging of that.

I just want to say that the staff have indeed worked hard to build relationships with our First Nations. Certainly in dealing with a number of issues, they always seek to meet the requirements and the interests of First Nations. I can assure you that Cathy Watson, the individual I named as a director, is a senior staff member. If there was a requirement for additional supports, I'm sure she would have requested that.

If the member is questioning whether this was sufficient or not, then, again, I would have to say that that is the matter, I guess, that is before the courts, in making that determination. All I can say is that the individual, Ms. Watson…. I am familiar with her work. She's very good at, as I say, building those relationships, and when she meets with First Nations — I've seen her in action — she certainly does credit to the consultation process whenever asked and required to be a part of that.

I think that perhaps is the best I can provide the member. If he wants to get into specifics, I fear it gets close to those questions that may be reviewed or raised as a result of the appeal.

H. Lali: Dennis Pilon, a political scientist professor at the University of Victoria, specializing in comparative democratization and electoral reform, says that the inclusion of a corporate seat on the council of the resort municipality sets an ugly precedent. He says:

"The whole point of representative democracy is that people are represented, not corporations, and that there is some relative equality in their influence. To give this corporation a vote on this council violates every idea associated with that. Obviously" — and he's referring to the resort here — "the resort is already able to help generously fund the candidates that they think will best serve the public interest. What's next? The forestry companies are going to get a seat in the Legislature?"

I'd like to ask the minister if she can tell me: does the province believe that the inclusion of a corporate seat on Sun Peaks council undermines one of the fundamental principles of local representational democracy?

[1705]

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I'm not here to debate Mr. Pilon's comments, and I appreciate the member referring to them. I will just say that there is only one other resort municipality that was incorporated, and that was for Whistler. I think the member is familiar with that. Whistler at the time had also appointed a provincial representative on council.

Again, I want to assure that in this case there was only one in five of the councillors that was placed in this position, therefore not a majority. It was also term-limited, and this was a request by the incorporation study committee. That is how this came about.

H. Lali: In Whistler is there still a seat there for the resort? No?

Hon. I. Chong: No. The municipality is fully elected. As I indicated, these are term-limited.

H. Lali: There's also a risk that public dollars spent on the municipality may represent a veiled government subsidy. Certainly, Dennis Pilon seems to think it's highly suspect, obviously. And Al Raine, the Sun Peaks mayor, in response to these comments…. Although he says that when it comes down to specific things like should we have a recreational park in one location and a school in another location, those are community issues. But he does state: "The province and the resort corporation have agreed on a master plan for development." Those are his words.

I know the minister said that the instance of Whistler…. Could the minister tell me if there are any other municipalities in B.C. or elsewhere where that situation exists? The minister said there were term limits. What is the term limit on this one?

Hon. I. Chong: I think the member will appreciate that I'm not going to engage in the dialogue, that apparently he read into the record, with Mr. Pilon and Mayor Raine. I don't think that's appropriate for these debates.

With respect to his question on other resort municipalities, Whistler was the only other resort municipality incorporated in this way. The term limit for the provincial appointee to Sun Peaks will end at the same time as the elected members, which will be this coming election in November.

H. Lali: So does including a corporation as an equal voting representative on an otherwise democratically elected local government have any impact at all on the spending of public money or the risk of government funding being seen as a veiled government subsidy? I mean, does this blur the boundary between public and private?

Hon. I. Chong: The short answer is no. I just want to assure the member that all individuals who serve on a local council, as the member will know as I'm sure he has been in this position, do take an oath to ensure that there are no issues of conflict of interest and must absolve themselves or remove themselves from decisions for which there may be a pecuniary interest, direct or indirect. I believe that was the oath. That was the oath I took when I was elected to local government, and I'm sure that is still in place at this time.
[ Page 7427 ]

H. Lali: I mean, Sun Peaks has also imposed a bylaw in September 2010 to ban the discharge of firearms, crossbows, and bows and arrows without consulting with neighbouring First Nations.

Now, I'm not at all promoting firearms or shooting, whether it's through pistols, rifles or shooting or firing or operation of bows. I don't even know what the terminology is. I don't hunt, myself. I don't discharge firearms, so I'm not even familiar with the correct terminology.

[1710]

So I'm not trying to promote any of it, hon. Minister. I thought that I would read that into the record. But the Neskonlith Indian band Chief Judy Wilson said that the law would have a significant impact on the band's hunting activity in their traditional territory. They're protesting, because they said that they were not consulted about this.

What role would the ministry play in an instance such as this? It's a new municipality. You know there's the matter that went before the courts and the Supreme Court decision that had taken place. The province is obviously challenging that decision. But on the one side you have this bylaw that came into effect with no consultation. What's the role of the ministry to make sure — if not in terms of a good-neighbour policy but because it's traditional Indian aboriginal territory — that the bands in the area would be consulted by the municipality before bringing in such a bylaw?

Hon. I. Chong: I again would caution that the area the member is canvassing is getting very close to the matter before the courts. I want to provide him with as much information as I can without jeopardizing what may be the outcome of the court, because I believe the judge had made reference to this.

What I understand, and I can say this, is that Sun Peaks developed this bylaw for the purpose of dealing with safety issues. That's my understanding. The role of the ministry would be to approve of the official community plan for Sun Peaks but not to deal specifically with bylaws. So as I understand it, this was introduced by Sun Peaks because of the issues of safety that they were concerned about.

H. Lali: I just want to shift the focus. I want to thank the minister for her answers there. I know that because the matter is before the courts, her hands are a bit tied. Anyway, we'll shift the focus here a bit.

I want to talk about the creation of an office of the municipal auditor general. The new Premier, Ms. Clark, during her leadership platform, said that she wanted to create an office of the municipal auditor general and fund the office as a part of the Auditor General's office. The office would provide advice on financial decisions and provide a measure of accountability. This is supposed to be part of her open government initiative, which she had outlined during the campaign.

It would give this auditor general the mandate and, hopefully, the budget to monitor local governments. Currently that responsibility lies with the local governments themselves, which often, as you know, don't have the capacity to conduct audits of their budgets and their operations.

Now the idea as proposed by Ms. Clark is that a municipal AG would actually make municipalities more accountable to taxpayers, which is a good idea, a great idea — the accountability to the taxpayers. There has been an interest in a municipal auditor general for some time. For example, Raymond Louie and the Olympic village fiasco definitely highlighted the need regarding that.

There is some precedent. The idea came up in at least Alberta and Ontario. It was implemented in 2009 in Nova Scotia and has also been endorsed by the B.C. Chamber of Commerce and chambers of commerce from across the province.

I'd like to ask the minister: what progress has been made so far on Premier Clark's leadership campaign commitment of creating an office of the municipal auditor general?

[1715]

Hon. I. Chong: I take it from the comments from the member that he is in agreement or somewhat in agreement that a municipal auditor perhaps is a good step to take forward.

What I can say is that there is now some research underway. Our staff is also taking a look at other jurisdictions where there are municipal auditors, but when we get to that point of how it is to be established and the amount of work that needs to be handled by the office, we will work in consultation with UBCM to ensure that they understand the requirements of a municipal auditor.

I can tell the member that I had a meeting with our Auditor General, not specifically for this but on another issue. I discussed the issue of a municipal auditor, and he indicated to me that while there are some municipal auditors that exist, there is not one set of rules that they all adhere to and that it can be a complex issue. We don't make a determination at the outset as to what that auditor should be doing versus what is already in place.

As the member will know, the financial statements of all municipal councils currently are either comprehensively reviewed or audited, I believe, by independent auditors, so that already takes place.

We don't want to duplicate those kinds of things, so we will have to proceed very carefully, working in collaboration, as I say, with the Office of the Auditor General, if that is to be the case, and working with UBCM to understand their expectations of what is required, because they
[ Page 7428 ]
do represent local governments, but at the same time taking a look at what is taking place in other jurisdictions to find if we can get the best out of all those best practices that exist and then incorporate them here in British Columbia and have a solution for what we want that I think everybody will accept and appreciate.

H. Lali: I think the minister has extrasensory perception. She read my mind and answered the question before I even had a chance to ask if she had any kind of a discussion with the Auditor General, so there you go. That's great. If all estimates could be done this way — right? — there would be no need for us.

Just seeking a bit of clarification. It's hypothetical, obviously, right now because we don't have any kind of a bill or anything before the House. But would the office of the municipal auditor general be located and operated and funded as a part of the existing Auditor General for British Columbia?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm sure the member has the document that I have that Premier Christy Clark had offered, where she had made the commitment that we would fund the office as part of the Auditor General's office and that the office would provide advice on financial decisions to provide a measure of accountability.

This was the commitment she had made, but as I say, in making that commitment, I think we want to keep to the spirit and intent of that. Whether that will actually work in practical terms, again, we don't know. Those discussions haven't taken place. My very brief discussion with the Auditor General, as I indicated to the member, revealed to me that he has seen a variety of models and would be very, I guess, conducive to discussing with us as to what the best practices are that we can incorporate.

No final determination has been made, and it all will depend, in part, on the outcome of the research that is underway currently. It will also depend on the consultation that we take with UBCM, and we just want to take a look at the best approach to get to the outcome that we want. I can't say that this will be exactly as was envisioned, but I want to keep to the spirit and intent of what her commitment was. We'll have those discussions.

H. Lali: Any rough idea, ballpark figures, how much it may cost us — some low and high figures, and I can try to guess in between — to try to set something up like this?

[1720]

Hon. I. Chong: I'm afraid I can't give the member any possible range, because even in my discussion, as I say, with the Auditor General, he shared with me what varied degrees of involvement a municipal auditor has for those jurisdictions that have them. As I say, we can go in any direction, and it could take shape in any way, so I can't even begin to give a ballpark figure.

H. Lali: This is my final question before I turn it over to my colleague on other matters related to your ministry, hon. Minister.

I know you briefly mentioned earlier that you're looking at some of the other jurisdictions. Would the minister, in the due diligence and deliberations, be able to find out what the ballpark figures are in Nova Scotia, for instance, for setup in 2009 and what kind of scope they have over there and be able to share some of that information with the critic?

Before I take my seat, I want to thank the minister and the minister's staff who are here and folks sitting in the galleries for all of your hard work. Thank you very much for this dialogue that we had here today.

Hon. I. Chong: Perhaps the member was reading my mind, because I was going to say that the determination of, I guess, the costs associated with this will have to factor in the scope and the requirements of that.

Actually, I agree. I think that when we are able to bring forward some of these best practices after we've done the research, it's a good idea for the opposition critic to understand what we're attempting to do, and perhaps even allow him to provide some input for us to develop something that I think both sides of the House agree would be a good thing — as well as for the UBCM executive to agree, too, that this is the right thing and good thing to move forward to.

I take him up on that offer. If he's willing to be a part of the solution, then I think we can make this work very well. So thank you very much.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I've got a few questions around municipalities, cities — that kind of thing. Then I will hand it over to my colleague from Maple Ridge, who will start off on a couple of questions on gaming. Then we'll continue with gaming, B.C. Arts Council — a couple of questions down there.

On the University Endowment Lands, I believe it was last year that there was a bill brought into the House that made the former minister at the time kind of a de facto king of the University Endowment Lands. I believe that's how some people portrayed it. So if there was a problem in land development out there, in the end the minister could make the final decision on that.

Just wondering if the minister could provide us an update on where that process is and how much longer the minister will be the final de facto head of the University Endowment Lands and where we're going to go with that.

[1725]

Hon. I. Chong: The questions the member for Vancouver–West End raised actually were two separate issues. The legislation that he referred to that was passed last year or last spring was with respect to the,
[ Page 7429 ]
I guess, regional growth strategy that continues to apply to the UBC campus. What was changed, or what was provided for in the legislation, was that the authority under those…. The land use decisions, which were previously under Metro Vancouver, were passed over to UBC so that the UBC land use plan could be developed and be made consistent with the regional growth strategy.

What has occurred is that UBC has produced its first land use plan. The previous minister approved that land use plan, so that is what has occurred with the legislation.

With respect to the University Endowment Lands, which the member will know is like an unincorporated area in a rural part of the province, although it happens to be in the heart of Metro Vancouver…. It's an unincorporated area. Until such time as there is a request for a change to how its government structure is, I guess we will continue to make those final decisions. There has not been brought to my attention a desire to make a change at this time.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thanks to the minister. Yes, I've combined two areas, although they're very much the same area — well, next to each other. It's an interesting kind of anachronism to how government may have been done many years ago and is still done in many parts of B.C. It's just it's funny to see, right in the heart of Vancouver. There certainly have been some conflicts, although we hope that consultation and working with the public will help ameliorate those difficulties. Thanks for the answer on that question.

I will now turn it over to issues of gaming, community gaming grants.

M. Sather: A couple of questions from one of the agencies in my constituency. They ask when we will have a decision regarding the reform of gaming. The minister said they would be going through consultations with the community about gaming reform. They're wondering how an executive director could become involved in that process.

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I think the member will be aware that Premier Christy Clark announced that in the coming months there will be a prominent individual, who is independent of government, that will be appointed to head a review of the community gaming grant program to examine the role of government in gaming, with input from charities, community members, industry representatives and local government.

Once the review is announced, I do encourage, and I expect the member should encourage, all non-profit organizations to participate in the consultation process by taking any of their suggested recommendations and options forward.

It will be very much, I envision, a two-way opportunity, where the prominent individual will hear recommendations, get input and provide input. I think I'm comfortable enough in saying that in today's world there will likely be an opportunity for written submissions or on-line submissions, something of that nature.

For individuals and groups and organizations that I have met with who have taken an interest in this, I have cautioned them not to send a 30-page submission in, because it will require the individual to spend hours and hours of reading. If they could make their submission or their presentations succinct, it probably would help that prominent individual to get to the core of some of the options that he or she would like to present to government.

Certainly, the sooner he or she is able to present those options, the sooner we can take a look at those and see what we can act on.

[1730]

M. Sather: The other question is that agencies are required to supply 25 percent for the 75 percent from gaming funds. How are some agencies, who are so strapped from previous years' cuts, supposed to come up with 25 percent? Will the minister consider lowering or eliminating that figure?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm advised that the 25 percent level can be determined in a number of ways, but it does need to come from the community — i.e., not from another government agency.

[M. MacDiarmid in the chair.]

That 25 percent can be calculated based on even using such things as community volunteer hours. I think that the hours that are usually used are $10 or something to that effect. So it can be, you know — especially with the non-profits, which have so many volunteers — quickly calculated, I think, to represent a fairly substantial amount. It could represent donations. It could represent local government, because it's not provincial government dollars, or other in-kind dollars that are provided.

My understanding is that, you know, we haven't seen that that 25 percent has presented a significant problem. If the member has somebody that he's aware of and would like to share that with us, I'd be happy to take a look at that and ask our staff to take a look and see if there has been difficulty in the application grant because of not being aware of these avenues they could use to make that base amount of 25 percent.

M. Sather: This question is about the Big Brothers Big Sisters in Maple Ridge, which was closed, unfortunately.
[ Page 7430 ]
They work out of the Abbotsford office. You know, the Abbotsford office told me that their grant this year is only 60 percent of what they got in 2010, so I'm wondering if the grant would be restored to 2010 levels.

The other question, though, that's come up is around whether Abbotsford could be designated as a regional centre in terms of their gaming eligibility. I'm just wondering if they will be able to apply for that regional status and, if so, by how much would that likely increase their funding if they got that status?

[1735]

Hon. I. Chong: I don't have…. I'm trying to search out the actual numbers, but if the member wants, we can provide that to him as to what amount they actually received.

On the other side, good news. The member is correct. This year we will be implementing funding to deal with organizations like this on a regional level, and it's very likely that they would qualify as a regional centre with three locations.

For funding at the regional levels, the amounts that they could receive would be anywhere from $125,000 to $225,000. Again, it would depend upon their application. My understanding from staff is that we are looking at that, certainly, being a regional centre.

M. Sather: Thanks to the minister for that. That sounds like good news.

Just one last question on our child development centre. They note that CDCs can't apply for funds — this is typical of all groups, as far as I know — until the fiscal year is more than half over. They apply between August and November and don't find out until February what grant they will get, when the fiscal year ends in March.

The question is: is it possible to bridge 100 percent of funding for this year so that when they apply, they will not be applying for the next fiscal year? The way it is now, they're gambling with how much they could or could not receive.

Hon. I. Chong: I just want to confirm to the member that there has been a recent change in terms of the turnaround time for funding. When the applications are received, we are attempting to have the requests met within a 12-week turnaround.

So for this particular child development centre that the member speaks of, their cycle of application, I believe, is August to November. If they apply in August, then likely within 12 weeks they would be able to receive their notification, as opposed to waiting until the end of that period, November, which would perhaps put them into February.

I think perhaps that is traditionally how people have been making applications. It's like doing your tax return. You have from January to April 30, but everybody wants to file on April 30. If you can apply early and get your funding earlier, why not do that?

This is a concerted effort and change by staff in the ministry to try to accommodate and provide that cash flow sooner and, hopefully, better for those organizations. I would expect the member to go back to the community and say: "As soon as your cycle opens, put your application in right away."

S. Chandra Herbert: My question to the minister…. I know my colleague asked it, so I got a bit of an answer, but I was hoping for a more fulsome answer. When will the gaming review start? When will the person be appointed, and what is the timeline?

[1740]

Hon. I. Chong: I would like, obviously, for that individual to start as quickly as possible. We are still taking a look at a number of prominent individuals who would be able to do this. We want the individual to have the time to do this.

At one point I believe we said it would be a retired judge, but I think we've now moved it to a prominent individual, because sometimes retired judges don't have as much time on their hands as they think they do. But we're still exploring that.

As soon as we're able to make that appointment, we'll certainly want to talk to the individual as to what their schedule is and how quickly they can move on this review. Unfortunately, I'm not able to give you an exact date, but I am as anxious as he is that we move on this as quickly as we can.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes, the minister is correct. I'm eager to have this happen, as are tens of thousands of people in the arts community that I hear from.

I did a bit of a wider consultation with folks to find out what questions I should ask the minister, so I will be referring to a number of the questions that I received.

The question that comes up again and again around gaming is, of course: when will this review happen? When will it be completed? For arts and culture folks, the reason they're asking this is that well, their gaming grant deadline is the end of May. A huge number of them are no longer eligible for gaming grants because of this government's decisions to cut off groups that might serve adults, not just children. So this is a huge concern I've heard, because they were hopeful.

They'd heard about this idea of a commission — that the rules would be quickly changed, people could have their advice and we could get something happening. But it seems that this has gone on and on. They likely won't get an answer in time this time around, maybe having to wait until next year. So I will be reading through some of their questions and comments as we go.
[ Page 7431 ]

Can the minister share what the broad terms of reference are for this investigation, this commission?

Hon. I. Chong: Unfortunately, I'm not able to provide a defined set of terms of reference, other than, I guess, the general premise upon which the review would be undertaken.

The review will ensure that there will be meetings with local non-profits on how the funding structure, in particular, can be improved upon to bring greater certainty to groups that are applying. I have indicated that if you're looking at the funding structure, you are perhaps looking at the formula. You're perhaps looking at eligibility and obviously, when eligible, how that affects the organization and therefore whether there is certainty and clarity that can be provided on the funding that is provided.

Those will be some key elements, I believe, that will be incorporated in the terms of reference, but there may be other specifics that we need to add. So I can't give the member a rundown of that.

[1745]

Again, we're hoping that when the review is completed, government will in fact be provided with a series or a set of options for consideration to allow us to, as I say, make the determination on how best to go forward.

I certainly appreciate that the anxiety level is out there in the community. I know that people are eager to find out how this will work. But once this gets underway, I would expect that a number of the organizations will immediately try to engage and provide input — and again, to encourage them to do so even without the terms of reference.

I'm already suggesting to my community groups, and I'm sure that the member should be doing the same thing, that they should start drafting out some of the areas of concern they have and, really, what they believe this government's role is with respect to gaming and to their organization. That, too, I think would be a very helpful exercise that they could take now so that they are really ready to come out of the gate when the review begins.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the minister for the suggestion. I guess the concern that I've got is charities — and not just in arts but also sports, environmental, social service, etc. They're running full-time. They're running to keep their heads above water in a number of cases due to gaming cuts and other issues. So for them to be told to get prepared with what they think should be in this, when the government is not prepared, when they don't have written terms of references, when they've made announcements about how, "Yes, we're going to do this" and "Yes, we've restored the funds, and everything should be fine," when they aren't….

People are frustrated. They don't get why a government can put out a press release saying they restored the funds when they didn't — some money came back but not anywhere near where it used to be — and then be told: "Don't worry. A commission will solve all the problems." Yet the minister is not able to provide the terms of reference for the commission, and there's no timeline of when it will even happen. So it just feels like yet another kick, yet another instance of disrespect from this government towards charities that have for many, many years received support through gaming.

You know, these are charities doing crucial work in our communities, so to come here today to estimates and not be able to tell us what this commission is even really going to look at, aside from "we'll take suggestions," is concerning. I'd hoped to hear things like: is one of the terms of reference going to be about what percentage of gaming moneys is going to be dedicated to charities?

Another term of reference could be: who gives out the money? Is it arm's length? Is it the community that decides? Or is it a minister who can go in on a whim, as the former minister did, and say that arts groups that are professional arts groups serving adults, or fringe festivals or writers festivals or film festivals are not community cultural celebrations, yet cowboy days are? That's what the minister did. It's just not right.

I'll give the minister another chance. Maybe there are terms of reference, and she can send out for them, because this is a crucial issue for tens of thousands of British Columbians.

[1750]

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I just want to be clear to the member for Vancouver–West End. The reason why I said I wasn't able to give him specific terms of reference is because I haven't got the final, I guess, approval as to what that should be, because we need to be able to have a good and frank discussion when the prominent individual is selected.

What I can tell the member is that staff have had a number of meetings with a cross-section of groups and organizations who are gaming recipients to hear what they think so that we do have a list of things that we believe the cross-section of gaming recipients have advised us they would like the prominent individual to take a look at.

I can share with the member that some things that have arisen are, obviously, funding; the role of government, which is what I said earlier; what other jurisdictions do — we're asked to take a look at that; the eligibility and the criteria — again, I've already indicated to the member that that's what we're looking at.

Other things that have come up are multi-year funding, or not. So those are some suggestions that we have already currently received. We await to have the discussion with the prominent individual to see whether this is
[ Page 7432 ]
satisfactory, whether there is more to be added to it and whether there are some changes to this.

That's the only reluctance I have of giving the member a set of terms of reference, because I don't want him running out and saying, "Well, this is what you gave me in estimates," and then the next month I show you another piece, and you say, "That's not what you said," knowing full well that it is still under development to the extent that we want a prominent individual, when selected, to also have input on what he or she believes needs to be core to this discussion.

S. Chandra Herbert: Is this prominent individual going to be able to be independent in the sense of being able to report out without government filters defining what they can or cannot say?

Hon. I. Chong: I already read it into the record. Yes, this would be a prominent individual independent from government.

S. Chandra Herbert: The final report: will it be given to the House, to all members, or will it be given to the minister, and she will be able to decide what to do with it at her own discretion?

Hon. I. Chong: The individual, the review that has undertaken, will be reporting back to myself as minister responsible. At that time I will take a look at the options provided and make a determination as to which options are the most appropriate for government to take.

I don't see a problem that some of these options are shared with all the public. As I say, the individual will likely share that anyway, you know, and it will probably become quite evident as he or she is receiving a number of recommendations.

S. Chandra Herbert: So there won't be a confidentiality clause that the individual will not be allowed to speak, or anything like that?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, without having an opportunity to speak to the prominent individual, I don't know what his or her desire would be. That could be included in the terms of reference. It may not be included in the terms of reference. Again, I need to have that discussion with that individual based on some of the information that we've already gathered as to what the gaming recipients are interested in. Then he or she may want to offer us what they believe, how the report should be brought forward.

So again, I believe that that individual needs to have an opportunity to make his or her suggestions to government as to, you know, how exactly his or her role will be.

S. Chandra Herbert: No. What I was asking was: will the minister require confidentiality in the sense that a report might come to government which says, "We believe that X percent" — maybe it's the 33 percent that the B.C. Association for Charitable Gaming has spoken about…. If the prominent individual agrees with the community and says to the minister, through a report, "This is what I believe you should do," and the minister, for whatever reason — maybe it's colleagues, or maybe the Treasury Board turns it down; I'm not sure — chooses not to release the report and maybe just changes a couple of details….

[1755]

Will the minister commit today that that individual will be allowed to speak and will not be held, you know…? If they agree to join up in this process, they will not be told: "You cannot communicate what is going on in this process." Will they be allowed to be truly independent and speak their own beliefs and what they've heard from the community, or will they be held back by the minister?

Hon. I. Chong: The idea of having a prominent individual who is independent from government means that government is not going to have any direct role in his or her ability to receive input and to review recommendations and options suggested as provided to him — basically, to provide him or her unfettered ability to do the work that will produce a report to government.

I suspect that the report to government, as I receive it — after I have had a first glance at it, anyway — will be eventually made public. That's generally the course we're able to take with these. But again, I don't know that there's a need to sign any confidentiality agreement simply because the individual will be unfettered to receive, as I say, information and then produce a document for government to consider. We'll deal with those options he or she provides to us.

S. Chandra Herbert: I wasn't asking about whether or not the individual would have an unfettered ability to hear. I was asking if they would have an unfettered ability to speak. Does the minister agree that they will have the unfettered ability to speak?

Hon. I. Chong: I understand that would likely be the case if this individual is independent. How he or she approaches the process will likely determine what he or she is able to provide to government.

S. Chandra Herbert: Given that, I understand, then, that the minister is saying the government will not require this individual to not speak about what's happened, what the report recommendations are or any such thing like that. They will have freedom to speak. Is that correct?
[ Page 7433 ]

Hon. I. Chong: Well, this is not a review or an audit or an evaluation of past programs, as such. The purpose of this review is about going forward. The purpose of this review is about having opportunity to hear from gaming recipients and non-profit organizations as to how they believe government's role with respect to gaming grants should be and how that relationship should exist, eligibility areas and criteria, funding obligations — those kinds of things.

So that is what will eventually be and, I guess, goes to the member's questions originally about the terms of reference. The individual will be able to gather and seek information and then put out options going forward as to where they believe government should be.

It's not an audit or review or evaluation of past…. He or she may take into consideration some of the concerns that are raised by individuals so that he or she is able to then produce, as I say, a set of options for government to consider, based on what he or she hears. But as I say, this is about going forward with respect to community gaming grants.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I've tried that question a few times. I was just hoping for a simple yes or no answer. It doesn't sound like I'm going to get one, but I'll give the minister one more chance.

[1800]

They will have the freedom to speak. The report will be freely available. They will have the freedom to say, "Yes, the government is doing the right thing," if they follow the recommendations or, "No, they're not," if the government only releases some of the suggestions from the report and agrees with some of them. Is that correct? Or will they be limited in what they can say?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, it goes to what we were discussing earlier. It goes to what the individual will be asked to do, and that is, through his or her terms of reference, to provide government with options with respect to community gaming grants.

If he or she wishes to speak to what he or she feels the community gaming grants need to be and therefore give us those options, then I'm prepared to receive that information.

Again, it's not about trying to evaluate how we have evolved in gaming. But he or she is welcome to take a look at what other jurisdictions do and therefore make comparisons for us. That's perfectly expected, if that adds to the substance of the report.

The member is wishing me to speculate. I don't think he is, but to some extent it is to say: "Well, is he or she able to do this or that?" I don't know what he or she wants to do. All I know is that this review is meant to go forward to take a look at government's role with respect to community gaming grants; to hear from and receive input from our non-profit sector, the volunteer sector and those who receive gaming grants; to be able to provide some certainty going forward on how gaming grants are to be provided in the future.

S. Chandra Herbert: Something the minister just said there struck me. I'm just curious if it was intentional or if not.

The minister said something around it wasn't about what's happened in the past; it's about what other jurisdictions are doing. That's how I interpreted it. If it's wrong, then please correct me.

Is this to suggest that we're not going to refer back to earlier agreements with the charitable gaming sector — for example, the memorandum of understanding which they've spoken about many times? Will that be allowed to be considered in this process, or are the terms of reference structured in such a way that looking at the evolution of gaming in this province is not allowed?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I just want to be clear that the prominent individual, when selected…. I will have an opportunity, I expect, to sit down and share with him or her some of the information that we have already gathered as a consequence of our staff having had a discussion with a number of the cross-section of gaming recipients.

As I've indicated, some things that have come up already are things like funding, the role of government, what other jurisdictions do, the eligibility requirement and multi-year funding. I expect that I would begin my discussion with this prominent individual saying: "Well, here is what I've already heard. I'm hoping and expecting that you will agree to these areas."

Now, if he or she doesn't agree, I'm not necessarily going to be able to say that they should or cannot, because this individual will maybe want to offer up what research he or she believes he or she needs to do to make sure going forward that they can provide us with some sound options to take a look at.

What the Premier has indicated, my understanding is, is that the review is going to take a look at things like governance, like funding, like eligibility. If those are sort of the three pillars of this review going forward, that will form a basis upon which the prominent individual is able to craft his process as he undertakes his dialogue with the public.

[1805]

Again, I say that there have been questions on what other jurisdictions are doing, so I'm going to present that to the prominent individual. If he or she doesn't agree that that's relevant, then I'll just let him or her make that decision.

That's one of the reasons why, as I said to the member earlier, I haven't got a firm set of terms of reference, because I do need to have that discussion with the individual, sharing with him or her some of these things that
[ Page 7434 ]
have already been raised and also keeping in mind the three areas that the Premier in particular was very interested in, and making sure that going forward we will be able to receive a report in fairly short order after the review begins so that we can get on with whatever options are presented and making some decisions on those.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thanks to the minister for that answer. A number of people, particularly in the arts community, that I'm hearing from are being told: "Get grant applications in. You never know. Even if you might be slightly outside of the bounds of what the eligibility is, the government may have some leftover money."

They may decide to send this in and just try to fit the grant criteria, as opposed to what the non-profit's mandate might be. That's a concern, I think — when mandate creep starts to happen and you start checking boxes in an attempt to get funds to pay for what are probably really crucial programs but maybe don't fit the narrow eligibility criteria that the government has.

I see the famous Ursula Cowland from the gaming branch back there, who is known all over the province; that's for sure.

Is there any thought on how that might happen, or should arts folks only apply if they meet those strict criteria?

Hon. I. Chong: What I would say to the member is that in his discussions with the groups he's meeting with, certainly he can ask those groups to send in their applications based on the criteria that are currently available without the review being concluded, or started and then concluded. I cannot speculate on what changes there may or may not be, but there is currently an application process. There are currently criteria that are well known to individuals.

I guess the real bottom line is that if you aren't sure and you don't put in an application, we can't even evaluate it. If you at least put in an application, we may have an opportunity to evaluate it. The member has referred to the famous Ursula Cowland, of course. She reviews these on a regular basis and takes into consideration whether or not they fit the criteria.

The best suggestion I should give to the member is: ask these groups to submit their application. They will be evaluated based on the criteria we currently have, and we'll see whether or not there's a possibility.

S. Chandra Herbert: Two questions. The first one is: for groups that submit applications and are not successful — I understand; I've gone through the process myself in my former life working in the arts, although we were successful — is there some sort of a record, some sort of an analysis of what these groups were applying for? They may not be successful because they might be slightly out of the eligibility criteria, but how is this currently happening within the ministry?

[1810]

Say if an adult group applied, would it be noted that an adult group applied but they didn't get the money because it's only for kids? Thus, next in the review process maybe the prominent individual could look at that and go: "Oh, a lot of people have applied." They weren't eligible, but it shows there's a demand. How is that being handled?

Hon. I. Chong: When applications, certainly, are received and are successful — obviously not a problem. But for those applications that are not successful, there could be a variety of reasons. I'll just name three as examples.

There could be organizational issues with relation to that entity. There could be program delivery issues with respect to the entity. There could be even financial issues with respect to the entity. We have the reasons why an applicant may not have been successful, and we would have that list available.

The prominent individual, if he or she were wanting to have a look at them, we would likely be able to provide that, assist him or her in his or her review going forward. But here is where perhaps the confidentiality would step in because of organizational, program or financial reasons. Those are private matters that should not be shared. For those reasons we may have to invoke confidentiality on that in terms of sharing information with that individual so that he or she does not take it and use it in a way that could be harmful to an entity.

S. Chandra Herbert: Could the minister do a breakdown of how much is going to each sector, so the arts and culture, sports…?

Hon. I. Chong: What I have available is a reference table for community gaming grants. This was for the 2010-11 year under the previous Ministry of Housing and Social Development. Currently what we have established as what community gaming grants are is the same amount as what was established in the previous year because, as you know, the status quo budget was brought in. These figures at this time are going to be the same. Again, the review may make changes to it.

[1815]

If the member wishes, I could read this into the record, or he can go to the website and get this. I don't know what is quick or easy. Or else we can send a copy of this over to him, and he can take a look and see what that is.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes, a copy over would be great, but I believe it's $11 million for arts and culture. I ask as the arts critic. I know there's also social develop-
[ Page 7435 ]
ment, there's sports, there's a number of public safety, and there's a number of other categories as well at $11 million. It used to be in the range of $18 million to $20 million, so there, of course, has been a big cut — not quite 50 percent, but it's a deep one.

I hear from groups like the Choral Federation; Richmond Art Gallery, a community art gallery which has had to shut its doors; and a number of other community arts councils — Peace River–Liard region and others — who have sent in e-mails, who are quite concerned because their budget, if they did get some money this year, has been cut back.

Is the minister advocating, I guess, for a proper return to at least the levels of 2008?

Hon. I. Chong: I can say I appreciate the member, who is the critic for arts and culture, raising with me all those concerns that have been expressed out there. I admit that certainly we have heard that when there were changes made to the gaming grants. With the fiscal challenges we had there, there had been some decisions that were made, and we are obviously trying to keep within the fiscal restraints we have.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

However, when Premier Christy Clark took a look at some of the grants that had been reduced, she felt very passionately that there needed to be a return of some dollars, which is why the $15 million was returned to a number of our non-profit groups.

Going forward though, again, these are valid questions that are raised, but it will require the prominent individual to review some of those concerns. While it may be easier to pick and choose this group or that, I think it would be more useful for that prominent individual to have a look at the sector, as has been indicated, to see what government's role is with regards to that sector.

I look forward to hearing from them. That's one of the reasons why the Premier has indicated that this prominent individual will seek input from these groups. They need to provide that information for us to be able to have a look at the number of options for government to consider.

Again, I'm not able to share with the member what may happen, because it's still very much a review that, once underway, I think will yield some interesting facts.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the minister for her answer. Of course, while I was happy to hear about the $15 million that had been put back, and I understand that the minister said the Premier took a look and took compassion for a number of the groups, it's unfortunate that it didn't extend to the arts sector. You know, I've got e-mail after e-mail here of groups that had been hopeful, given some of the remarks made in her leadership campaign, that they, too, would be recognized.

I guess that won't happen for another year should the prominent individual decide to recommend something and should the minister then decide to go with that recommendation for the arts sector.

I could go on and on about the role arts play in our society and in our economy, but I know that the minister has heard me make that speech before. I will save this because we have very limited time given the incredibly short session that we have right now, a session that's…. You know, we hadn't sat for, I think, 256 days, and then we got together for four weeks. We'll deal with that, of course.

[1820]

If the minister wants to advocate for a longer session so that we can get into these discussions in a more fulsome way with more committee time spent and more bipartisan or cooperative forms of discussion on this, I'd love that, but that is not for today.

Moving on to the B.C. Arts Council…. There may be a couple of other people who ask questions around gaming. The question around the B.C. Arts Council and arts funding in general is that B.C. is, of course, and has been for many years, in last place in all of Canada in terms of per-capita support for arts and culture. Does the minister feel this is acceptable? Where does she believe that we need to be in Canada in terms of investing in the arts?

Hon. I. Chong: I suppose that to be able to use a statistic or a comparator like per-capita spending on arts and culture would have more relevance if, in fact, every province used the same basic statistics and included the same areas right across. But unfortunately, that's not the case. For example, here in British Columbia, what contributes to our arts and culture community is our film industry, and what is not included is the $150 million worth of tax credits, as an example, that we provide.

Every province does it differently. I understand as well, as my staff have advised, that in some provinces what they include in spending includes things like parks and libraries. So without a real apples-and-apples comparison, we actually cannot go to a conclusion that this is the best way to spend dollars.

What I can say, though, is that here in British Columbia we are the second-highest in personal giving to charities. We also have the highest in donation rates towards arts and culture. Perhaps the reason why people are able to provide and to give is because we have the benefit of a strong economy.

However, having said that, I want to say that what's also important is not always looking at the inputs — what we provide to a sector — but also the outputs. I'm pleased to say that in terms of outputs, here in British
[ Page 7436 ]
Columbia we have more artists per capita than any other province. So clearly we are doing things right here. It's either the environment we have or the other measures we have, other tax credits we have, that allow artists to thrive in our province versus others.

While I appreciate that it's easy to go to a comparator like a per-capita spending, my understanding is that because of the varying degrees of things that are included or excluded, it really doesn't make for a good comparison.

[1825]

The critic may disagree. I understand that, but at the same time I think we do need to take a look at what we're doing here in British Columbia and what we're actually receiving in terms of outputs.

S. Chandra Herbert: If the minister doesn't agree with the Statistics Canada figures, which show that we're far back in per-capita support for the arts, I'm wondering if the minister would ask her ministry staff to do a real apples-to-apples comparison. This has been a consistent issue that we have raised for many years, and the response is always: "Well, there's no apples-to-apples comparison." If the government is proud of its record of investing in the arts, will they do an apples-to-apples comparison?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, if the statistics are going to be used in a relevant manner, then perhaps there would be some rationale for spending the time and effort into trying to gather that information.

I've already provided the member with some of the areas that are included or excluded. As I say, we have…. I believe the film industry contributes greatly to the arts and culture community. Tax credits that we provide here, which aren't necessarily provided in every province, are not included. As I've indicated, some provinces include things like parks and library.

I think what's most useful is that when we make investment here, we see the outputs. If the outputs are that we are able to have more artists per capita than any other province, I think that's a good outcome.

If the member is interested in finding out the areas where we do contribute towards the arts and culture community and wants to have a briefing with staff, I can certainly set that up. But as I say, when we are investing in dollars, I'm prepared, more importantly, to focus on what we're able to achieve with those dollars.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, if the minister doesn't like the per-capita-investment argument, it would be very simple to do an apples-to-apples. We're talking about, in particular, the B.C. Arts Council and the gaming grants. I can tell the minister how much money is being dedicated out of those funds and the small amount that's being paid towards the ministry itself. It's not difficult to call up the government of Alberta and say: "How much are you investing in non-profit arts and culture activities?" It's not difficult to do that across Canada.

So I'm not sure…. This government loves to talk about per-capita investments in transit, in health care and in a whole bunch of other areas — not just the outputs but also the investments. Why won't this government do that for arts and culture?

Hon. I. Chong: I believe I've already answered it. We're going to be focusing on the outcomes based on the investments we make in arts and culture.

S. Chandra Herbert: I guess the answer is that they know the answer, and it is: yes, B.C. is last. If it wasn't, they would say so.

It's very easy to do. I've certainly tried my hand at it, as have many others, and the results consistently show that B.C. is last in per-capita investment in the arts. Until the minister finds a way to show us that that's not the case, those are the numbers that we've got.

I'm curious if the minister can confirm when the B.C. Arts Council will actually know its final budget. I understand some has been allocated, but they're still waiting for final allocation of resources so that they can have a full budget.

[1830]

Hon. I. Chong: Before I answer the question, I just want to quickly put on the record, because I think it's important…. The member believes that the issue of the per-capita spending is important, which I can appreciate. As I said, I may not agree with him on how he places relevance on that and how I place relevance on that.

What I am very encouraged by and what I want to say is that British Columbia has more artists per capita in the province and we are enjoying the fastest rate of growth in the number of artists. I think those are tremendous and remarkable accomplishments that we should be very proud of. I want to acknowledge that that is taking place here in British Columbia.

With respect to the member and his question with the arts council funding, currently the arts council is aware of what some of its base funding is. I know he is aware that last year the arts council received some additional dollars through the arts legacy fund. The arts legacy fund is currently held in the Ministry of Finance.

What is required is that we go through an annual process that allows us to allocate those funds. We are currently going through that process, so I'm not able to provide the member with an exact date, but we certainly are going through that process currently to make a determination on how to allocate some of those funds, which, as I say, will very likely be what the arts council is alluding to and asking the member to raise.
[ Page 7437 ]

S. Chandra Herbert: Yeah, I think that it's a little over $7 million which would be needed to bring the arts council budget up to its historic level of around $16 million. Is the ministry going to be continuing with its spirit festivals?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm not anticipating continuing with the spirit festivals.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I'm glad that the minister has decided that government-directed culture is not as successful as community-directed culture. I'm glad to hear that.

I'm going to move quickly, because my colleague from Cariboo North has some questions as well. I'd like to touch on capital dollars. Is the minister considering putting forward a request or finding some way for non-profits who work in arts and culture to access capital dollars in terms of grants? There used to be a program in B.C. This government decided to discontinue that program. Will we be able to access capital dollars again in this province for arts and culture?

[1835]

Hon. I. Chong: The capital grants I believe the member is referring to were not an allocation of the arts division of the ministry — wherever the arts and culture branch was ever situated, whichever ministry. My understanding is that the capital grants that were available were previously through the community gaming grants that were provided. Again, I think that it's very possible that a review that is undertaken by the prominent individual may address that issue or may not address that issue.

Again, these are important questions. That's why it is important for this prominent individual to be able to go out to the public to ask for their input, seek ideas and then to make a determination and provide to government a number of options for us to consider.

S. Chandra Herbert: Just on the $10 million that's currently sitting in the Ministry of Finance. Is the minister advocating for all $10 million of that to go to the B.C. Arts Council, as has been suggested before, or will some of that money be held to be directed at the minister's whim? Or will it all be through a peer-reviewed process, as the B.C. Arts Council does?

Hon. I. Chong: When the arts legacy fund was established in Budget 2010, it was never envisioned that it was to be the base funding or added funding to the B.C. Arts Council. I don't expect, even though that was obviously the desire or request or ask at the time it was established, that that would be the case going forward.

As we saw last year, there were some dollars that we were able to secure and provide to the Arts Council. It's an annual process, and we are going through that currently.

The purpose of the arts legacy fund, really, was to seek out opportunities, to take a look at what we could do with the arts and culture community and with our communities. I think that was what was important when it was established.

I do, and I hope that the member doesn't feel offended by this, take a slight objection to his comments earlier — and I don't know if he meant it — that he felt I thought that community festivals were not as important. That was the purpose of the arts legacy fund, to try some things that we thought could be useful.

Again, we have an opportunity, because it is a legacy fund — and there is an annual process to evaluate, review, see what worked well, continue those that did, or not — to find other ways to support the arts and culture community with respect to those dollars that are available.

S. Chandra Herbert: No, it was not my intent to malign the minister. No, my intent was to say that the ministry at the time, when it was cutting back on community festivals through the B.C. Arts Council and through B.C. gaming…. Government came up with the Spirit Festival idea, where the minister at the time — not this minister — made decisions around events that would promote the Premier, events that would promote government MLAs only, through using taxpayer dollars to do so.

I'm hoping that this minister has turned the page on that behaviour and will go through a peer-review process. It does concern me that the minister is not saying strongly right now that the money really should be with B.C. Arts Council — or at least the money to bring it to its historic level.

That has been how government has used this fund, even if that was not the intent. They cut the B.C. Arts Council so drastically that they had to. The Arts Council was crying out for help, saying: "Please, give us some help so we can do our programs."

I'm going to switch over to film. Obviously, the domestic sector has been challenged. I think we've gone from over $400 million down to somewhere in the range of $215 million. Maybe it's $230 million. My numbers are a little hazy.

[1840]

I'm wondering what initiatives the minister is launching for the domestic sector, understanding that the service side and the foreign film side of things are doing relatively well.

Hon. I. Chong: I just want to say that I realize the film industry does have its challenges, not the least of which…. I guess they've struggled with things like the rising dollar, but we are going to be continuing with our various tax credits for films. We have got the tax credit
[ Page 7438 ]
for the digital media. We are going to continue to work with them.

I have had a meeting with people in the film industry. Again, they are looking at ways to become more competitive. One of the ways they have shared with me that has allowed them to become more competitive, obviously, is the HST. They very much would like it to remain in place because it has given them a competitive edge that previously they weren't able to utilize in their markets. So I will continue to have my discussions with them and meet with them.

At this time they are happy that the tax credits are in place, but it's an ongoing dialogue that I have, hearing ideas and suggestions that they may have.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, just the domestic industry, the B.C.-based producers — the ones that tell the B.C. stories, B.C.-directed and so on — that I have talked to certainly are not happy. The post-production are not happy as well. B.C. producers were not enhanced through tax credits and, in fact, remain at a disadvantage. So is the minister considering the industry proposal to launch an intellectual property development fund?

Hon. I. Chong: With respect to intellectual property, I believe that is under the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation.

S. Chandra Herbert: It could be under this ministry if the minister wanted to advocate for it, and I'll certainly advocate for it wherever I can.

Now to the book publishing industry. I know that the Association of Book Publishers of B.C. have struggled. They had cuts to their ability to be an advocate for their industry. Block funding for book publishers has remained stagnant — in fact, has actually been cut by approximately 10 to 15 percent for book publishers.

I'm just curious. What is the minister going to do for book publishers, film, magazines? There's a wide range of cultural industries that had received some support through the government before but were cut two budgets ago.

[1845]

Yet they have to still compete with the Ontario Media Development Corporation, which is very big, very active, in trying to bring our business to Ontario and having some success at doing it.

Hon. I. Chong: My understanding is that there continues to be dialogue with government. It may not necessarily be staff in this ministry, although we will be consulted on that with the industry with respect to things like credits, like intellectual property rights and so forth — again, seeking ways to allow them to thrive and be more competitive.

If the member is asking that we restore funding, he knows that I'm not going to make that commitment in these estimates. I'm hoping, you know, when that dialogue continues, to be able to produce any kinds of recommendations. We would have certainly have a look at that and see what government is able to do, given the fiscal situation we are still currently in.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the minister for her answers, and thank you for those who came to have questions asked.

I see the executive director, I believe, of the Royal B.C. Museum here. I had a couple questions to get to on that, but because the time is so short, I've been unable it do so. So I'd like to thank the minister for her answers and to thank the arts, culture, creative community of B.C. for providing me with some questions to ask. I'm glad that I'll be able to continue to advocate on their behalf with this minister.

Vote 21: ministry operations, $243,265,000 — approved.

Hon. I. Chong: Before I move the motion, I just want to, as well, thank all opposition members for participating: the members for Fraser-Nicola; Delta South; Alberni–Pacific Rim; Burnaby–Deer Lake; Delta North; Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows; and, most recently, the Vancouver–West End MLA. If there are any further questions, they can feel free to provide that to my staff, and we will endeavour to get the answers to them as quick as we can.

I want to thank the staff who have joined me today. They've all participated and have been very helpful and useful throughout this estimates process, as they always have. I'm very proud to be a minister of this particular ministry.

With that, I move that committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:49 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