2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 38, Number 4

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Statements

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WEEK

Hon. P. Bell: I have three quick things on my agenda here. The first one is to rise and announce that this week has been proclaimed Economic Development Week here in British Columbia. We acknowledge that the strength of the provincial, municipal, regional and aboriginal economies is critical to supporting families in British Columbia. We're pleased that the government is committed to ensuring a strong, prosperous economy. Economic Development Week is a big week for all of us. It means that we can all find ways to support the social services that we're all looking for.

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Bell: The second step of three…. This one is definitely an applause one. We're joined in the gallery by a group of administrative professionals from the economic development division of the ministry — Aleesa Paulson, Leigh Anne McDonald, Nicole Dailly, Marilyn Rundell and Peggy Grant. I would ask that the members please make them all very welcome.

The third and final quick point I have is that I understand that it's the member for Vancouver–West End's birthday today. I understand it may be his second anniversary of his 29th birthday. For those that need math help, that would be 31. I think that's impressive, and I think we all long for those days of being 31. I would ask that all members please wish the member opposite a happy birthday.

C. James: I have another school group visiting the legislative precinct today. I'd like the House to welcome 21 grade 4 students from St. Patrick's School in Victoria. They're spending the day learning about the Legislative Assembly and how government works and observing the proceedings.

The students are accompanied by their teacher and principal, Mr. Patrick Card; their student teacher, Mr. Alec James; and six parent chaperones. But there's also one very special guest who's there with the class today, and that's the daughter of our able Deputy Clerk of the House. Megan Ryan-Lloyd is here. She is actually turning ten tomorrow, so I'd like the House to please wish her a very happy birthday and welcome the class to the Legislature.

D. Barnett: Today in the House I'd like to welcome Scott McFadyen from the Canadian Propane Association and Derek Belton from the B.C. propane committee. Welcome to the House.

K. Conroy: It also gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome a school group here, a group from Stanley Humphries high school. It's actually the high school I graduated from. This grade 11 French immersion class is here with their teacher, Fiona Martin, who was here last year as part of the teachers institute, and she was so impressed with the institute that she decided to bring her class here with her this year.

Also with the group is Duff Sutherland, who happens to be the husband of my constituency assistant, Edena Brown, and they are dad and mom to one of the students, Fraser Sutherland. I would be remiss, though, if I didn't introduce one of the other students, who happens to be my baby brother's daughter. My niece, Sawyer Thor-Larsen, is here with them also. Would the House please join me in welcoming all of the students here.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Today I had the opportunity and the privilege to host an event in the rotunda to recognize the great work of an organization called CAYA, which stands for communication assistance for youth and adults. CAYA provides equipment and services to British Columbians with communication disabilities. April Proudlove, who is a young woman here with cerebral palsy, demonstrated how her Vanguard communication device gives her a voice.

Joining us today in the gallery, we have Jeff Riley, who is the manager for CAYA; provincial speech language pathologists Lois Turner, Tessa Lowis and Jan Dunn; speech language pathology assistants Sarah Gauthier and Callie Coulson. We also have CAYA clients Ashleigh Dukoff with her attendant, Kim Bouchard, and Alex Schaum. I'd like the House to please make them all very welcome.

[1340]

D. Donaldson: I note that Derek Belton from the Canadian Propane Association is in the gallery. He met earlier with the official opposition Finance critic and myself, and it was a very informative session. Would the members please make him welcome.

B. Bennett: It's my pleasure to introduce 12 people today, who are here with a non-profit organization called CanPKU. PKU is a rare metabolic disorder. It stands for phenylketonuria. I'll be giving a statement about it in a few minutes.

I'd like to introduce, with CanPKU, Amanda Cosburn, Rosie Pallone, Cole Watts and Hayden Young, first of all. They have this disorder, hon. Speaker. I'd also like to introduce John Adams, who is the president and CEO of
[ Page 11960 ]
the organization. Nicole Pallone is vice-president, and Brienna Young is a board member. Also with them today is — and I apologize if I don't get the names perfectly here — Gerre Barnett, Carmella Pallone, Cole Rickett, Barb Watts and Josh Wells.

Please help me make them welcome.

M. Elmore: I'd like to welcome a number of visitors from the Corpus Christi Elementary School joining us today. There are 30 grade 5 students, ten adults, and they are accompanied by Mrs. Maureen Konstantinov. I ask everyone to please make them welcome.

Hon. M. McNeil: I'm pleased to welcome some very special guests to the Legislature this afternoon. A number of young people have joined us as we get ready to kick off B.C. Child and Youth in Care Week, which starts May 20. I had the pleasure of having lunch with them today, and I am really looking forward to celebrating next week with them.

I would also like to welcome representatives from our key partner groups for Child and Youth in Care Week. They are Lorena Pilgrim and Lisa Mickleborough with the Federation of B.C. Youth in Care Networks, Gary Mavis and Sade Scott of the Federation of Aboriginal Foster Parents, and Russell Pole of B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations. Joining us from the Adoptive Families Association of B.C. are Sophia Barton-Bucknor, Cathy Gilbert and Courtenay Crucil.

Will the House please join me in making them feel welcome.

Tributes

MARGE GOULET

B. Simpson: On Wednesday, May 9, Marge Goulet passed away. Marge was a true Métis elder and knowledge-keeper. Born on September 4, 1945, she was raised in the traditional ways of her people, living off the land and speaking the Cree language fluently. Marge worked with children at risk in the Quesnel area and with the provincial Métis Association, and she was a tireless advocate for better health care and housing for Métis seniors.

Marge Goulet will be sorely missed by her husband and her three adult children, and by the Métis community in both Cariboo and in the province.

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Lake: For the last 18 years the B.C. environmental assessment office has had a very important task of ensuring that our natural resources are developed in a sustainable and responsible manner. Today we have in question period galleries some of the very, very important administrative assistant team from the BCEAO, including Eowyn McEwen, who is the correspondent clerk; Chrystal Fenton, the project assessment assistant; Jane Mayall, Leigh-Anne Gajowski, and Nataliya Matsko and Susan Hall, who are also project assessment assistants. From the associate deputy minister's office we have Karla Kennedy, who is the manager of executive operations and strategic initiatives.

I hope the House will join me in making them very welcome to the House today.

J. Kwan: Indeed, this is Economic Development Week, and we join with the minister in celebrating that. The NDP opposition had the great pleasure today of having lunch with representatives from the YVR — YVR president Larry Berg, along with Tony Gugliotta — right? Almost. He is the vice-president, of course, of the YVR. We know that YVR is an important component of economic development and in contributing to the B.C. economy.

I ask the House to please make these guests welcome as we celebrate Economic Development Week.

[1345]

J. Slater: It's my extreme pleasure to introduce in the gallery today Jim Mattison, who is a board member of B.C. Water and Waste Association. Jim was also a past assistant deputy minister with the Ministry of Environment. He was affectionately known in British Columbia as Mr. Water. Would the House make him very welcome.

Hon. S. Thomson: I'd like the House to make welcome two constituents from Kelowna-Mission, Barb Watts and her son Cole. They're here as part of the PKU Awareness Month that the member for Kootenay East referenced. I'd like the House to make them welcome — two constituents from Kelowna-Mission.

L. Reid: I'd ask all members to join with me in welcoming two remarkable women to the gallery. We have M.J. Carroll and her mom, Evelyn Carroll. Their dad was my first principal in Richmond at Woodward Elementary School when I came to be in, probably, my second year of teaching — a glorious educator, a glorious family. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. P. Bell: Mr. Speaker, in my rush to do a number of introductions, I missed one. There are two birthdays being celebrated in the Legislature today. The 31-year-old member for Vancouver–West End, who is undoubtedly the youngest member of the House, is also joined by the Minister of Environment, who is today celebrating his 55th birthday — I think incredibly well preserved for 55. I would ask that the House please congratulate the Minister of Environment on making it through 55 glorious years.
[ Page 11961 ]

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

STONE SOUP FESTIVAL
AND LOCAL FOOD SECURITY

J. Kwan: From a bustling network of farmers markets to local community garden plots, many individuals and organizations in my constituency are active participants in the movement to strengthen our local food system.

This past Saturday members of the community gathered along the Napier Greenway for the 17th annual Stone Soup Festival, an event that serves to celebrate and raise awareness of food security issues. The festival was hosted by the Britannia Community Centre and featured live music and children's activities; educational workshops; a market for local farmers, artists and food vendors; and of course, healthy servings of free soup.

The festival is more than just about food, however. It is about bringing people together to strengthen bonds in the community that will help us move forward toward a more equitable and environmentally sustainable food system that produces healthy food for everyone — something I know our critic, the member for Saanich South, has advocated for.

I would invite all members of the House to join me in congratulating the wonderful staff and volunteers for another successful year of the Stone Soup Festival.

CHILD AND YOUTH IN CARE WEEK

G. Hogg: "Notice. Listen. Respect. Stand with B.C. children and youth in care." A powerful slogan written by a group of remarkable young British Columbians working together to help create the nation's only week that celebrates children and youth in care. Last year B.C. became the only province in Canada to proclaim such a week, and now we get to celebrate the second annual awareness week honouring young people who are in the care of the province.

The week celebrates the individuality, the accomplishments and the talents of the children and youth in care. At noon today I met with one of those talents, a man who, like me, is an aficionado of rap, a man who, unlike me, is very talented. So a special shout-out to Chris Tait. Shout out!

The week encourages community members from all walks of life to stand in support of young people in care. There are approximately 8,200 children and youth in government care in B.C. They are our neighbours, our children's friends and classmates. Like all children and youth, they are unique individuals with their own dreams, experiences, talents and challenges.

We want young people in care across B.C. to know that we care about them and that we care about their futures and that no matter what success means to each of them, we are here to help them achieve it. B.C. Children and Youth in Care Week wouldn't be possible without the contributions of our key partners.

[1350]

I'd like to acknowledge and to thank them — the Federation of B.C. Youth in Care Networks, the Federation of Aboriginal Foster Parents, the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations and the Adoptive Families Association of B.C. These organizations stand with and for children and youth in care every day.

I ask this House and the people throughout the province to stand with and for children and youth in care as part of this very special awareness week. B.C. Child and Youth in Care Week is May 20 to May 26.

100th ANNIVERSARY OF
VICTORIA KHALSA DIWAN SIKH TEMPLE

R. Fleming: This weekend marks a very significant occasion in my constituency of Victoria–Swan Lake. The Khalsa Diwan Sikh Temple at 1210 Topaz Avenue is officially celebrating its 100th anniversary.

The original temple, or gurdwara, was established at its present site in May 1912, making it British Columbia's third Sikh temple. A handsome brick and wood structure, it was built for a contracted price of $7,500. Prior to its opening, Sikhs gathered for prayer and rented rooms or community homes.

One hundred years ago, Victoria's Sikh temple opened with a massive parade of 1,200 Sikhs throughout our city's downtown. In Chinatown supportive banners flew from buildings of the various Chinese societies. Newspaper accounts recall that at the head of the parade on horseback was Prof. Teja Singh, a Harvard graduate and the leader of the temple, who preached "the gospel of equality at the street corners to the rows and rows of spectators wedged together along the parade route."

Victoria's Sikh population arrived in the capital city in 1906. Records show that by 1910 there were 4,000 Sikhs living and working on Vancouver Island. The Daily Colonist describes these early immigrants as "strong, strapping men around 30 years of age, having been either soldiers or farmers, now working on B.C.'s railway projects, sawmills and industrial operations."

Then Canada passed a shameful law to stem more arrivals from the Punjab that stripped Sikh veterans of the British army of their legal right to immigrate to Canada. In 1914, B.C. experienced the pain of the Komagata Maru incident, where Canada's unjust maritime law was complied with, but the ship still ordered to return to India.

It was not until the 1920s that Canada finally allowed the wives and children of B.C.'s Sikh pioneers to join them. With families intact, Victoria's tight knit Sikh community flourished in the following decades.

Eventually, the temple outgrew its size constraints. In
[ Page 11962 ]
1969 the original temple building was demolished to make way for a new and larger temple, this time costing $200,000, on the same site. Atop its 41 steps is the most glorious vista in Victoria. I invite all members of the House to join with me in congratulating the Sikh community for 100 years in Victoria.

PHENYLKETONURIA

B. Bennett: Today I'm going to have the pleasure to meet with representatives for CanPKU, the group that I introduced earlier. It's a Canadian non-profit group dedicated to educating and advancing the causes of people diagnosed phenylketonuria, a rare metabolic disorder.

Essentially, people with PKU are missing an enzyme to break down protein in food, specifically one amino acid. This amino acid is called phenylalanine. It's often called PHE. Since this amino acid can't be processed completely, it builds up in the blood in excess amounts across the blood-brain barrier. When excess amounts build up, brain damage and other neurological problems result.

Anyone who has had a child in recent years is probably familiar with the PKU test. It's conducted in a hospital through a blood spot collection 24 to 48 hours following birth. A newborn baby's heel is pricked in order to collect the drops of blood for testing. If a condition is diagnosed, follow-up and treatment will begin immediately.

British Columbia in 1964 was one of the first jurisdictions to test newborns for PKU. Now, after B.C.'s leadership, each province and territory in Canada has their own government-run newborn screening program.

If untreated, children will develop serious, irreversible mental disabilities. Screening means that babies with PKU can be found early and treated with a special diet, which will prevent severe disability and allow them to lead a normal life. If babies are not screened but are found later to have PKU, it may be too late for the special diet to make a difference.

One baby in 12,000 in British Columbia is born with PKU. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the representatives here today on behalf of all of us here in the House for the education that they are providing us legislators on this rare but important-to-understand disease. I look forward to the discussions we'll have this afternoon on how those diagnosed are treated and their symptoms managed.

TOURISM INDUSTRY

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, it is Tourism Week in Canada, National Tourism Week.

Interjections.

[1355]

S. Chandra Herbert: That's right, it should be a cause for celebration. Tourism Week and Economic Development Week — it's a good week to be in B.C.

Well, I'm calling on this House to recognize that we need to do better by our tourism businesses, by our tourism non-profits, by the tourism employees who bring us one of the top three economic impacts in our province. Indeed, one of the top employers in B.C. is tourism businesses.

It's easy for members to sometimes forget that, because the sector is so diverse. There are businesses ranging from the ecotourism to the agritourism to the cultural tourism to the ski tourism to the recreational tourism, and on and on you go. There are many, many different ways to see our province.

The industry is calling on us to recognize that competitively funded tourism marketing is vital. It's a competitive industry out there. Many people want what we have. Unless we pay attention to the marketing side, we could lose the market share that we have.

Indeed, it's been tough times in B.C. We're not quite at the levels we were at before the Olympics, and the industry wants us to pay attention to marketing even more. They want industry leadership for marketing. They want formula-funded for marketing so that they can make sure they can plan years ahead. That is something that certainly we on this side of the House and, I understand, that side of the House are interested in as well. We hope that that happens very, very quickly.

Whether you are in northern B.C., Kootenay Rockies, Thompson-Okanagan, Vancouver Island, Vancouver coast or Cariboo-Chilcotin coast, there is so much to do in our great province. We on this side of the House would urge all British Columbians to get out and see our great province in this upcoming long weekend, because when the money is spent here, it stays here. It grows jobs here. Tourism is helped out because of that.

DRINKING WATER PROTECTION

J. Slater: This week is Drinking Water Week across the province, organized by the B.C. Water and Waste Association. It is an opportunity to celebrate our natural resources and take some time to think about what we can do to help protect and conserve those resources.

The demand for drinking water across the world is increasing, and it is crucial that we look at our own water habits. There are many simple things that we can do to reduce our water consumption — for example, install an inexpensive shower timer in the shower to help you monitor and reduce showering times. Ensure that your toilet is running properly, and fix any leaks or excess running water. Always properly dispose of medications and hazardous materials so that they don't contaminate our water supply. Water your lawn early in the morning to reduce evaporation.

You can find many more tips on drinkingwaterweek.org. While there, I suggest you sign up and take the B.C.
[ Page 11963 ]
Community Water Challenge. You will be doing your part to help protect our drinking water.

You can also get involved where you live. There are community drinking water events going on across the province, from the Okanagan WaterWise Challenge to the drinking water booth at the Coquitlam Farmers Market.

Here in B.C. we are lucky to have some of the safest and cleanest drinking water in the world. Ask Greenwood. Since the creation in 2002 of B.C.'s Action Plan for Safe Drinking Water we have seen a number of significant improvements: more certified operators — more than 1,300 newly certified since 2002; a new on-line course designed to help train small systems operators; improved notification and reporting of boil water notices; monitoring data and other information by health authorities and water suppliers; and strategies, tools and procedures that health authorities may use to find and regulate small water systems.

I am proud of those achievements, but there is always more to be done. It is up to all of us to ensure that we continue to do our part to protect B.C.'s drinking water.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ENERGY POLICY AND
ELECTRICITY GENERATION COSTS

J. Horgan: Yesterday we asked the Energy Minister a series of very serious questions about why it is that B.C. Hydro is being forced to spill water over publicly owned, publicly paid–for dams in the Peace country, while B.C. Hydro is then forced to buy expensive, independent power at four times the market rate.

The minister took us through a lovely walk down memory lane yesterday, as he had 24 hours to figure out just how much it's costing the taxpayers of British Columbia to let water flow over the turbines rather than generating electricity for B.C.

[1400]

Hon. R. Coleman: Speaking of memory lane, I'll just give a little memory lane to the member opposite. This is a quote from the member on CKNW on November 5, 2006. He's always going on about the premium you might have to pay for some renewable energy when you want to have balance and make sure you have enough energy for when times are tough, like maybe in drought years when you don't have excessive water between your dams. He says: "We should pay a premium for renewables so that we can rid ourselves of technologies like coal."

I get that the member wants it both….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: I know the member wants it both ways, but we have a high water year this year. The possibility of spill may take place this year because of that. Next year we could have a drought year, and we would not be spilling.

We have dams in B.C. where we haven't had the spill since 1994, depending on what the high water year was in British Columbia and how we maximize the use of our dams. We'll continue to do that.

This is a particularly high water year. We have looked at it, and we'll continue to monitor it for the benefit of our ratepayers.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Just for some context for the quote from six years ago. It was after the B.C. Liberals announced that they were going to build two coal-fired plants in British Columbia. The member for Peace River South will remember that very well.

Now, I appreciate….

Interjections.

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

Continue, Member.

J. Horgan: I appreciate that context is a problem for the members on the other side of the House. But let's just focus on what was said by a B.C. Hydro spokesperson yesterday: "The spill is necessary to manage an excess supply of energy in the B.C. Hydro system right now."

Let's burrow down on that, if we could, for a moment. Why do we have surplus power? Because we've signed long-term fixed contracts with high-priced independent power producers. Rather than generating electricity for pennies and providing low rates for British Columbians, B.C. Liberals — by policy and ideology — chose instead to spend four and five times the market rate.

Can the minister explain, rather than reviewing the matter, what steps he is taking to reduce costs for British Columbians by ensuring our hydro rates stay low?

Hon. R. Coleman: The first thing we are not going to do is try and build a power plant in Pakistan.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: Am I to understand that the opposition opposes wind power? Am I to understand that the opposition opposes green power? Am I to understand that the opposition opposes bioenergy using wood waste
[ Page 11964 ]
from our forests to create electricity? Those are all alternate powers, hon. Member, and they all cost more than hydroelectric power.

I also think — mind you, I do have quotes to the contrary, but going both ways — they oppose Site C, because they keep going back and forth on that.

News flash for the member opposite: new power costs more than the power that was built in the 1960s. We have to invest in it. You didn't do it in the 1990s. We're doing it now to protect the future of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

J. Horgan: Keenleyside, Stave Falls, Seven Mile — all hydro developments that took place in the 1990s. Now, the reason you update infrastructure is when that infrastructure runs out of legs. Twenty years ago we didn't need to update infrastructure; now we do. The shoe is on the other foot.

[1405]

The challenge B.C. Hydro has now is that the government in power forced them to buy power that was not economic. The result today is a 36 percent rate increase over the next four years and projected increases of 18 percent over the next three years.

Now, I know the minister is going to stand up and say something about the time when the member for West Vancouver–Capilano was in short pants. But what we want to know is: what are you going to do today to keep rates low for British Columbians? What are you going to do?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: Sometimes the member opposite can paint a picture that even makes me shiver just a little bit. I'm talking about the short pants.

Our reservoirs have begun to refill. In the last couple of weeks we've had a rapid snowmelt. That can happen. Anybody that's ever been around emergency preparedness in this province and water management for flood control, including in the United States, will know this. There's a critical period of time. Right now we're in it — the six to eight weeks that we're in.

It doesn't matter whether the snowpack is large or small, but particularly when it's large, if you have too fast a melt, it fills up everything. It fills up the system, and you will have a condition where, because of that…. In the past week particularly, we've had a rapid snowmelt which accelerates the spill planning simply because of the melt. We have to be there to do it.

The member's other question. I know the member opposite supported the union to try and get a 9.73 percent in hydro rates put in place for each of the next three years. They continue to do that. You're wrong. We don't need to do that. We can keep rates down. Because of the changes we've made at B.C. Hydro — the procurement processes we've done, the staff changes we've made — we're in a position to go a lot lower on rates, and we will continue to fight to do that.

VEHICLE SAFETY INSPECTIONS

H. Bains: Data from ICBC and the Ministry of Transportation shows that since 2003 we have lost one in four inspector positions in B.C. During the same time heavy commercial vehicle traffic has increased by 50 percent. As a result, in 2011, B.C. had the second-highest out-of-service rate in Canada.

To the Minister of Transportation: why is this government putting safety of our commercial transport truckers and the general public on our roads at risk by cutting inspectors positions?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Unfortunately, Member, you're wrong. The numbers for CVSE…. If you want to look at it in 2003, we had a total of 276 employees. Today, 2011, it's 272.

Actually, the men and women out there on our roads do an incredible job. Most of us are well aware of the work that they do. They keep our roads safe. They inspect the trucks out there to make sure that they meet the safety standards.

The inspections, it's interesting to note…. It's unfortunate. The information that was put out there…. I believe it was by the head of the union, in trying to attract additional members for the union to pay their dues. He was wrong as well. In 2004 there were 26,635 total inspections. Last year we did 30,453.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: Maybe this will help the minister, because he's ignoring a lot of facts out there on this really serious file. Since 2003 the number of reported heavy commercial vehicle crashes has increased. Over 85 percent of the weigh stations in the province are either working on reduced hours or closed. What that means is more traffic, less inspections, more accidents.

Minister of Transportation, can you tell us this? Will you commit to ensure there are sufficient numbers of vehicle inspectors to ensure that the drivers on our roads are safe?

[1410]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Let me start with this. Safety is our highest priority in the Ministry of Transportation. We will always look after that.

I will, once again, take the opportunity to thank the men and women that work within the CVSE, both at our
[ Page 11965 ]
scales and on the mobile scales that we have out there within the permit centres as well.

I want to go back to what the member just said. In fact, Member, crashes involving commercial trucks are down 30 percent since 2003.

STATUS OF MOOSE POPULATION
AND GAME ANIMAL INVENTORY

D. Donaldson: Survey data show that moose populations across the province are plummeting. In some regions the numbers are down by 60 percent. The problem is that the Liberals have their head in the sand. There haven't been timely inventories completed on moose and other game animal populations under this Liberal government. That's what people on the ground…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Donaldson: …in the know, are saying.

The Guide Outfitters Association of B.C. say they've been raising these concerns for years. Can the minister responsible tell us why his government has been so negligent on this serious problem of declining moose populations in B.C.?

Hon. S. Thomson: I thank the member opposite for the question. The numbers are of some concern, the recent inventory numbers. They're not considered a conservation risk or an immediate conservation concern. But again, the numbers point to the need to continue to engage with the stakeholders, with GOABC, with the B.C. Wildlife Federation, with First Nations in those communities to look at the numbers and to determine the cause of the declines in certain areas.

Those engagement processes are underway. In those areas where we need to take appropriate steps, we will do so in terms of whether we need to adjust limited-entry hunts or whether we need to take other steps in those areas. The inventory work will continue, and we'll continue to work with all the stakeholders in the region where the declines have been identified, to look to take the appropriate steps to address those declines.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: Hon. Speaker, I see members on the other side laughing and smirking about this issue. It's no joke. Small businesses dependent on hunters are worried. Guide-outfitters are worried about their livelihood. First Nations are worried about losing a traditional food source. Their attitude shows total contempt for people in rural B.C.

Tl'etinqox-t'in Chief Joe Alphonse, whose traditional territories are greatly impacted by this issue, said this: "We are not sure what the problem is — whether it's a lack of scientific evidence needed by the provincial government employees or a lack of political will by the provincial Liberal government or a combination of both."

The government now, purportedly, has the scientific evidence. So is it just a lack of political will? Why are the Liberals leaving people who live on the land in rural areas to pay the price for this government's incompetence?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, the member opposite is wrong. We're taking this issue very seriously. As I said, the numbers are of concern. We're consulting with all the stakeholder groups throughout all of those regions. In '11-12 we've invested additional money in inventory work — $2 million this year in inventory work, in '11-12. We've got additional resources committed for the inventory work for the upcoming year to determine the causes of this problem.

There are a variety of factors. We need to determine what those factors may be that have resulted in some of the declines in the numbers. We are fully engaged with the stakeholders, with wildlife experts, with the First Nations in this area in addressing those specific numbers, those areas of concerns. Where we identify the issues and the problems, we'll take the appropriate action in terms of adjusting the wildlife management, limited-entry hunts or other steps that may be need to be taken in those areas to address the declining numbers in some of those regions.

[1415]

GENETICALLY MODIFIED FRUIT TREES
AND OKANAGAN TREE FRUIT INDUSTRY

L. Popham: The B.C. tree fruit industry produces a healthy product that is world-famous for flavour and purity. Growers are concerned that this marketing advantage is about to be undermined and put at risk as the federal government is considering the introduction of a genetically modified apple tree into the Okanagan.

Joe Sardinha, a conventional apple grower, has this to say: "Until I am convinced there won't be a market backlash, I'm not willing to take that risk." Fred Steele, another conventional grower, says: "Our markets will disappear." The B.C. Fruit Growers Association just last year passed a resolution opposing the introduction of genetically modified fruit.

What has the Agriculture Minister done to raise the concerns of our world-class apple growers with the federal government?

Hon. D. McRae: I'd like to extend my thank-you to the member for Boundary-Similkameen, a person who is well in tune with the apple industry, for raising this issue with me and asking my staff to look into it. Because
[ Page 11966 ]
of that I actually have some information for the member opposite.

We all realize that the CFIA is a federal entity, and perhaps this question would be best raised by maybe the Agriculture critic from the NDP at the federal level. I'm sure Thomas Mulcair is very pleased it's being asked here. But for that reason, because we want to know the answer, here are a couple of things you should know.

First of all, when the member for Boundary-Similkameen raised this issue, I said to my deputy minister: "We want to make sure the CFIA is aware." He has talked to the president of the CFIA, and the CFIA president is aware that we are questioning what's going on in this issue, even though it is a federal responsibility.

Furthermore, I also asked because I know there are concerns, raised by the member for Boundary-Similkameen, in the organic industry. I know the Agriculture critic actually is very concerned about the organic industry. Just today I asked my staff to make sure that the COABC, which represents the organic industry of British Columbia, is aware of this issue as well. I am very confident that the federal government is on top of it, but I'm also equally confident that my ministry is as well.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

L. Popham: It's all well and good that the Agriculture Minister is issuing a red alert to everyone in the industry. But we all know what's going on, and it's time that he caught up.

Organic apple producers are very concerned. That's true. Pete Simonsen, an organic apple grower in Naramata, says that introducing genetically modified apples into the Okanagan will "kill the organic industry because of cross-pollination." Mr. Simonsen is concerned because if seeds in his apples are found to contain genetically modified material, he will lose his certified organic status. Introducing genetically modified fruit would be disastrous for our organic fruit industry and damage the brand of B.C. fruit.

Will the Agriculture Minister and the B.C. Liberals stand with the opposition and the B.C. Fruit Growers Association and say no to genetically modified fruit in the Okanagan and British Columbia?

Hon. D. McRae: I'm going to just run through some of my notes, because it's important that we have clarity here. The product in question has been submitted for approval, but it is not approved, nor is it currently available to growers or consumers. As you all know, GMO crops are a federal jurisdiction. The application, which is very easily found, is at the www.inspection.gc.ca website.

Individuals, whether they are representing a group or just as an individual farmer like the organic farmer you mentioned, are invited by the federal government to make their comments known, to the members opposite. The company itself that is making the application is very transparent as well. CFIA will review the submission through their processes and rule on its merits. But it's not a provincial jurisdiction.

I also know that the CFIA has committed to consulting with the tree fruit industry as part of its review. But the reality is that to date, no applications for perennial crops….

Interjections.

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

Member for Fraser-Nicola, I expect an apology to the entire House for that.

[1420]

H. Lali: I withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: No, not withdrawing.

H. Lali: I apologize.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. D. McRae: I was so excited about my answer that I actually didn't hear the member for Fraser-Nicola. At least, it'll give me something to do after the….

Interjections.

Hon. D. McRae: Okay. I'll get over it.

Anyway, I want to make sure, as well, that the members opposite are aware that to date no applications for perennial crops with genetically modified genes have been approved in Canada. It's expected this process will go through due process but will take some time to process.

Again, I want to take this time to thank the member for Boundary-Similkameen for raising this issue with me.

CHANGES TO ADULT EDUCATION COURSES
FOR HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES

M. Elmore: The original decision to offer adult basic education to all learners was based on a report called Campus 2020 written by Geoff Plant, a former Liberal Attorney General. Mr. Plant said: "The public interest in eliminating barriers to participation in post-secondary education requires that no tuition be charged to any adult learner seeking to upgrade their education by completing high school courses, whether or not they already have a Dogwood certificate."

My question is to the minister. Why are financial barriers for graduated students now part of B.C. Liberal
[ Page 11967 ]
policy?

Hon. G. Abbott: As I mentioned to the member yesterday, for those who have not yet graduated from high school — that is, they may be in grade 11 or 12, haven't completed high school — the courses remain free and are continuing as they always have. There have been changes, with respect to the folks who have graduated and are going back for upgrading, for some courses. Those core courses will remain available to the graduates.

It's important to note that we have seen, for some courses — not so much the core courses but many of the courses that have been added for graduates, the elective specialty courses…. There's been a great proliferation of them, and we have seen very low completion rates.

If someone, for example, wishes to take Brazilian ju-jitsu, I think that's a very fine thing, but I don't believe that the students of British Columbia should be bearing the cost of that. Similarly, to take hip hop, I think, is, again, a very fine and noble thing, as is Latin and ballroom dance. But I think it is preposterous to suggest that the education guarantee should be dollars devoted to those kinds of activities when they can go to early childhood education.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Elmore: Chemistry 12, physics 11, accounting, biology, calculus, geology — these are the courses that previously were covered. It appears that the B.C. Liberals have now changed their tune from when they were covered in 2007.

My constituent Jennifer Chan recently came from China to Canada. While Jennifer has a bachelor degree, it's not recognized. She would like to enrol at Vancouver Community College but was told she needs to upgrade her computer skills. Now she cannot afford to pay for these needed computer courses.

Whether it is people born before the age of information taking computer science courses to expand their job opportunities or new immigrants like Jennifer looking to strengthen their computer skills for acceptance into post-secondary, free adult basic education is vital.

Mr. Speaker: Pose the question, please, Member.

M. Elmore: Can the minister please explain why it is no longer important to help people upgrade their education so that they can enjoy rewarding careers?

Hon. G. Abbott: Well, the member's question is based on a faulty premise. It's just not true what the member has said.

People — even if they have graduated from high school, even if they've graduated from university and want to take those courses, they can. The expectation will be, though, based on some very low completion rates for courses, that they may want to make a contribution up front to ensure there is a seriousness when they take on those courses.

[1425]

Again, just from the Janet Steffenhagen blog of yesterday on this matter, a comment from a teacher who expressed frustration with students who take courses over and over again to boost their marks. She suggests that "students pay for retakes of courses in order to eliminate the excessive funding which occurs when students take courses repeatedly — five times — because they do not take the opportunity to enjoy funded courses seriously."

That, I think, is part of the answer. The other part of the answer is that we have seen a proliferation of courses like…

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: …body toning, solidarity and justice, rock and roll history, which are not consistent with the education guarantee.

COSTS TO B.C. OF
FEDERAL ANTI-CRIME LEGISLATION

K. Corrigan: The Finance Minister said during estimates last week: "It's legitimate for the critic and, frankly, the public to question what impact Bill C-10 is going to have." He was referring, of course, to the federal omnibus crime bill. He also recognized that the issue is "how much additional cost will be driven onto cases that may find themselves in provincial facilities."

Given the Finance Minister's support for its legitimacy, we're going to once again ask a simple question that we have been asking for months. Has the Liberal Justice Minister been provided with any cost analysis of Bill C-10, and if so, will she tell British Columbians where it is and how much British Columbians are going to be on the hook for?

Hon. S. Bond: We have said consistently that we support the content of Bill C-10. We actually think that taking a strong stand against human trafficking is the right thing for the government to do. We also believe there should be tougher penalties for people who exploit children in British Columbia. Maybe for once the member opposite would like to stand up and give the opposition position on how they feel about people who exploit children.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: Actually, the Finance Minister also
[ Page 11968 ]
recognized that "the members opposite share, as we do, the strong support for the provisions in the bill that are providing tougher penalties for Internet luring, child pornography, child sex offending, violent offences," etc. But it's about cost.

Over the past two months four freedom-of-information requests on the matter came back heavily censored, with no reference to a completed cost analysis. Last week a fifth freedom-of-information package on the same matter was released, this time to the Maple Ridge News. Like the previous packages, it shows a briefing document prepared by ministry staff from November 3, but this time there are visible headings that were blanked out in the previous packages which say clearly: "Predicted costs," "Costs" and "British Columbia costs."

Clearly, this Justice Minister doesn't want the public to know that an analysis has been done. Will she immediately release that November document uncensored and show British Columbians what she has been hiding and how much we're on the hook for?

Hon. S. Bond: I think it's pretty rich that the member opposite would ask this government to talk about fully costed budgets that they're prepared to share with British Columbians, because we've sure been waiting a long time to hear from the members opposite how they are going to pay for everything they keep promising.

[1430]

We should be clear. What we've done is we have a plan in place, that actually consists of…

Interjections.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm happy to tell you about it.

…the largest expansion of corrections facility infrastructure in the history of British Columbia. While we expect that there may be pressures, we also know that British Columbia is better positioned than any other jurisdiction to manage the capacity issues because we had a plan. We're adding new capacity, and we're going to see those cells brought into place over the next number of months and years.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

I'm going to remind members that this hasn't been our finest moment.

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I have the honour to present the report of WorkSafe B.C.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This is the WorkSafeBC 2011 Annual Report and 2012-2014 Service Plan.

M. Dalton: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

M. Dalton: In the gallery today are 16 grade 6 students from Valley Christian School in Mission. They are accompanied by three parents and their teacher, Lisa Gerei. They're here to learn about government and what we do here. It's a great school. They've got a new facility that they've moved into, I believe, this year. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: This afternoon in this House we will continue debate on Motion 47, followed by debate on Motion 46 and then into second reading of the Income Tax Amendment Act, Bill 45. Should we follow that, we would finish second reading debate on Bill 51, the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act.

In the other House, in the Douglas Fir Committee Room, this afternoon we'll be continuing the estimates of the Ministry of Health.

Mr. Speaker: Members, hurry off to your other duties so that we can get going.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 47 — COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
TO SIT IN THREE SECTIONS

(continued)

H. Lali: I continue from where I left off before lunch, on Motion 47, the motion to start a third House here in the Legislature. I had, prior to the break, talked about how the Liberal government had brought in the fixed calendar on the premise that it was going to bring order into the lives of MLAs, especially MLAs with personal commitments or….

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member, excuse the interruption.

Other members, I'm having difficulty hearing the member who has the floor.
[ Page 11969 ]

H. Lali: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Also, MLAs who have families obviously needed some order, in terms of the time that we spent here in the House, in order to be able to actually carry on those personal duties, which was a good thing.

This whole issue of legislation by exhaustion, as it used to be known, was going to be thrown out the window. We were going to have a fixed calendar where we were going to have orderly cooperation. That was the whole idea behind it.

When I look at what this government has done since that came into being in 2001…. In that first term of government, 2001-2005, there were full spring and fall sessions that took place. Of course, 2001 was the post-election session. Then in 2002 and 2003 there were full sessions that went on. In 2004 just a one-month session took place at that time.

[1435]

Since 2005, and we are now into our eighth year, this government — aside from 2005 and 2009 being election years so that there were no real spring sessions…. Sessions had to be brought in, in the fall in order to pass the throne speech and also the budget. But aside from that, in those seven years we've just had two full sessions — in 2007 and 2011. In 2010 there was no fall session. In 2006 and 2008 there was just one week in the fall session each time. That was it.

In other words, when the B.C. Liberal government were 77 to 2, they felt, "Oh my, we'll have to have a fall session" — break it up. No more legislation by exhaustion. We were going to have a fixed calendar. But when 33 MLAs were elected on the opposition side, they threw that all out the window. We had a full opposition, and they did not want to be taken to task. They only brought in the fall session when they really had to, because of the election in '05 and '09, and just one week in two of the years and none in one of the years.

Now, instead of working with our House Leader to say that we're going to debate and pass those bills that are absolutely necessary and carry over what's left over, as usually happens in fixed calendars, into the fall, they don't want to do that for the simple reason that they want to continue to do business in the way they've always done that, which is in the back rooms, which is to be able to do something in secret.

A good example of that is what, again, Vaughn Palmer in his article in 2006 had said. He said at that time: "The Liberals were not proceeding with three of the four legislative measures on the NDP hit list. They'd put a hold on a proposed revamp of the Public Inquiry Act, which would have given the cabinet new powers to sit on the findings of public inquiries. The New Democrats had mocked it as the secret inquiry act."

Everybody in British Columbia knows what the Liberals are up to. They have shut down all sorts of accountability measures. They shut down all sorts of measures of democracy and openness that they promised when they were in opposition, but when they got into this House, like this Motion 47, they have actually shut it all down.

One of the reasons is they want to continue to do stuff in the back room — do it in secret. That's their way of doing stuff. They want to do it in secret, just like the B.C. Rail deal was all done in secret and the IPPs that they have and the changes to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act — all of that, out of the eyes of the public. All of those were done to keep the people's information secret from them.

There are almost, like, six dozen changes to that Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act to keep the people's information secret, away from their eyes — keep it in the back rooms, so they don't have any access to it. That's just the way that this Liberal government has always done things, whether it was Gordon Campbell who was the Premier or the present Premier, who was the Deputy Premier at the time. The more things change, the more they stay the same. That's what's happening with the B.C. Liberals.

I might wonder if there's another reason. Our House Leader had put forward a proposal to the Liberals when we got wind that they were trying to make some changes. Our Opposition House Leader had offered two proposals to ensure that there was sufficient time for debate. The first proposal was to actually extend the sitting by two weeks until the middle of June. This was immediately rejected by the Premier and the B.C. Libs.

The opposition also proposed a fall sitting of the House, which is what they promised, which is in accordance with their fixed calendar — or so-called fixed calendar, which they tend to fix to their own political needs. So the opposition also proposed a fall sitting of the House to allow for stakeholders and members to fully examine legislation over the summer months. Of course, that was summarily rejected as well.

[1440]

When you look at it in terms of consultation, very little is done. I mentioned B.C. Rail. When that was sold off, there was no consultation with the people. And they'd promised in election after election they were not going to privatize B.C. Rail.

There's the justice bill, Bill 44, on civil dispute resolution, and Bill 52, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), on electronic ticketing. Of course, regarding these, the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association has a response, and also a response from Victoria lawyer Michael Mulligan, who was also critical of Bill 52's shifting of traffic disputes to an on-line process.

The CBABC says that issues "raised by the draft legislation are the reasons why the CBABC sought out the ability to consult and collaborate on civil justice system reform issues identified in the government's recent Green Paper. Instead of collaboration and consultation, the gov-
[ Page 11970 ]
ernment simply introduced the legislation." This is the way that they do things, the B.C. Liberals. They don't want to consult. They just do things and continue to do things in the dictatorial fashion that Gordon Campbell was used to doing.

Bill 48, the B.C. Emergency and Health Services Act. Now, the B.C. paramedics union was also not consulted on Bill 48, and this act directly impacts the men and women working for the B.C. Ambulance Service. Bill 39, the Emergency Intervention Disclosure Act, is another one where there was no consultation.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, also weighed in, sending a letter to the minister responsible, saying the small benefit from the bill does not outweigh the privacy invasion of requiring a medical test and that the bill should be withdrawn. This was actually the third of three letters regarding three separate bills. Denham felt she was compelled to send a letter criticizing the government legislation because she was not consulted ahead of time, and she would be the one responsible for the implementation.

There are other bills as well, and it just goes on. I've talked about how there was no consultation by the B.C. Liberals on B.C. Rail. Well, also with the HST, in the way that it was brought in, there was no consultation. They already knew they were going to do this, didn't tell the public during the '09 election. "Oh no. It's not on our radar," they said. But right after the election, it was brought in. There was no consultation with the people.

I've already talked about the civil dispute resolution act. Well, there's also the Environmental Assessment Act, which they changed. I think it was in 2002. There was no consultation out there with the public to say, "We're going to make these changes," and watered down the environmental assessment to the point that you can drive a Mack truck through there. The developers are having a field day. It's running roughshod over the interests of British Columbians.

The Forest Act is another one, and the reason we have the decimation of jobs in this province under the B.C. Liberals over the last 11 years is because of the changes that were made to the Forest Act with no consultation, which got rid of all of the props, all of the supports that actually protected industry, protected mills and pulp mills and protected jobs, protected workers' jobs there — and communities.

They got rid of the job protection commissioner. They got rid of the 90-day mill closure review process, and they got rid of the appurtenancy clause. All of that was done as a result of no consultation on the Forest Act, which allowed this massive consolidation, corporatization, privatization of our timber resource. And 40,000 permanent jobs have been lost as a result of 80 sawmills and pulp mills that were closed by the Liberals — no consultation.

The Mines Act. People don't have any say in their own private property or the leases that folks have — the ranchers on Crown land or even their own private property. It's like a confiscation of the people's rights. Again, those changes were made without any consultation with the people who it was going to affect — the property holders, the private property holders.

[1445]

The Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act. When we were government, '91 to 2001, we brought in what was landmark legislation. Our Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act, also known as FOIPPA — when that was brought in it was seen as a flagship of freedom of information and also privacy protection across jurisdictions all across North America. Even at that time…. Previous to that, you couldn't get much access to information. There wasn't a law as there was. But our act was done after over a year's worth of consultation, almost two years, with people all across the province — the select standing committee of the Legislature at that time.

That's the kind of consultation that took place, and at that time…. Some of the members who sit on the government side are still there from that era 20 years back. They criticized us at that time, that it didn't go far enough to release information — the freedom of information to the people. That's what they said. You know what, hon. Speaker? Because they were going to make all those changes to carry out their massive agenda of privatization and corporatization of our resources.…

Deputy Speaker: Member, can I bring you back to the consideration of the motion.

H. Lali: Thank you.

So the consultation is what I'm talking about in terms of this motion — the lack of consultation of Motion 47.

At that time, those changes, when the Liberals came in…. Without consultation, they made six dozen changes to the Freedom of Information Act to make it even tighter — no consultation. This is the crux of it, this lack of consultation.

Another point is that if they would extend the session for two more weeks, as our House Leader had suggested, proposed to their House Leader, or if they didn't want to do that but pass the significant bills that they want to pass…. Let's debate and pass them. Life goes on. But the ones that are not significant or are not pertinent at this time but require a degree of consultation — we'd give it a few months and come back, according to the fixed calendar, in September, when we could have a full session instead of the rushed way in which we've still got 21 bills.

I think there were 17 bills in the last two weeks that they dumped on the Legislature. Then all of a sudden they're pulling out their hair and saying: "Oh my god, we don't have time." Many of these bills are coming in left, right and centre, and they're saying: "Well, the session is going to end at the end of this month. Well, I guess
[ Page 11971 ]
we better strike up another committee, Committee C. Section C."

We have A and B, and now they're going to do an unprecedented, never been done in the history of this province — to open up another section in order to debate bills, because they did not manage their time properly, and they dumped the whole bunch of bills at the last minute.

Interjection.

H. Lali: The minister says that somehow it's a waste of time, or we're wasting their time. I think that it's something to that effect. The fact of the matter is, and the hon. member knows…. He's been an MLA for 11 years, and he sat as a minister, I think, for, if not all of it, then most of that time. He knows quite well, because he was a member of that Liberal government that brought in the fixed calendar, that we have a couple months in the fall, according to the fixed calendar, when we can come back and do this. He knows better than the comment he just made.

Every fall they refuse to sit, or they sit a mere one week because all of a sudden they realize: "Oh well, I guess we've got to pass something here, so why don't we just call the House back for one week?" One week, just a short period of time. They pass what they want to pass, and then they're on their merry way. But they refuse.

After the summer is over, we've had our break, and they've had theirs. We're ready to do the people's work. We want to come back here and do the people's work. Every year the B.C. Liberals — especially that member, the Minister of Economic Development — oppose us and say no. Yet it's part of their fixed calendar. We know why it's a fixed calendar. They fix it to suit their own needs, their own political agenda, and not the agenda of the people of British Columbia. This is the way that things are done.

Now they find themselves going: "Oh my god, we don't have enough time." So instead of doing the right thing, which is to talk to our House Leader and strike a deal, as it was done in 2006, pass the important bills, and then say: "We'll extend the House by two weeks" or "We'll move some of those bills to the fall session…."

[1450]

No, they're striking up a third committee to dilute the number of members that are here to spread their interests. You can't pay attention to three houses at the same time, but you can with two, as the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant said. You can have your television set on to monitor what is going on in this House, and you can watch the other one on the computer or laptop that you have in your office to see what is happening in Committee A, the little House. This is called the big House. You can do that.

You can't do that with three Houses, if you want to speak on an important bill or if you want to speak on an important estimate of the budget or if you want to speak on the second reading of another bill. You can monitor that, but it's difficult to be able to do that. It takes the rights of individual members away for them to be able to do that.

Instead of actually doing the right thing, they're trying to force — because they have a majority — this third House on us, which is unprecedented. A third committee room — unprecedented.

Also, the fact is that — you've got to wonder — there must be another reason why they want to do that. Well, for a number of sessions now, the government, because of their own fault and the mismanagement of the economy and the social programs that we have in this province, have been getting a rough ride in question period and also by the press gallery, who sit up there. They're waiting for the Liberals, the ministers, when they leave those doors or those doors, when they step outside.

When they step outside, there might be a media person waiting for them right out here, easily accessible, and actually ask them the tough questions, similar to how we do it right here on behalf of the people of B.C. They might ask the Minister of Finance, for instance, that kind of question, after question period. To go outside and talk to the media — they might do that. That does happen.

They don't want to face those tough questions. So what you've got is you've got a government that has done things by secrecy — government by secrecy. Now they're going a little further. It's government by hiding, not just secrecy. They've done that for 11 years, so it's no new order of business. Now they're going to go further, and they're going to go hide. They are afraid to face the media, and they're afraid to face the members of the opposition because they can't handle the tough questions.

You see people watching through the television. People read the Hansard. It's on the record. And they know, the Liberals know they're getting beat up all the time. Now all of the chickens are coming home to roost. Within the time that we've got, they're going to extend the hours another six hours. That's not a huge amount, but it's six more hours.

At the same time, they're putting in another House to be able to finish their business because they didn't manage better and because they've gone into hiding. This is a government that has gone into hiding. They do things by secrecy. There's no accountability with this government. Without consultation, they have changed all of these acts that I have talked about, and without consultation they're now going to start a third committee because they have mismanaged, and now they've gone into hiding.

As I mentioned, we've got all these last-minute bills that they've dumped on us — 17 in the last couple of weeks — knowing full well that this session was coming to an end. Then all of a sudden, they're looking at their watches and going: "Oh boy. I don't think we're going to have enough time. We've got to do all of this bidding on behalf of our friends out there who support us in the elec-
[ Page 11972 ]
tion," or whoever financed their campaigns, "and now it's time for the payback. Let's just get it out before it's too late." That's what it's all about.

So we'll have more to say on the other bill that we're debating, Bill 46. I want to thank the Speaker for giving me this opportunity to put my viewpoints on the record.

B. Simpson: I want to start off by thanking members on both sides who have recognized that independents are in sort of a different situation with respect to the two motions in front of us.

We're talking about a motion just now to add an additional section, and then there's a motion coming up to add additional time. It is a bit strange to stand and to offer some words in a debate to add more time to get more debate on the substantive materials in front of the House, so I'll try and keep my comments as brief as possible.

[1455]

Here's the issue. We have seven days left, counting today. Today is a half day, so I guess 6½ days, then. So 21 bills, including the PST bill that we just got yesterday. One more bill to come, and three estimates left to go. The real question is: how best do we do the people's work with that amount of work that's left for us?

There are two principles that I believe we should be guided by, Madam Speaker. The first is an old one. I think it was Bill Bennett who said it: "Not a dime without debate." I think the estimates just now seem to be going along, although I have to say, over the years I have struggled with the degree of detail we are now able to drill down to in estimates debate. I think that we're at a very, very high level these days.

We can't drill down, service plan formats change, the measurable outcomes change. It's very difficult to understand clearly what's going on year-over-year and whether or not the government is spending the taxpayers' money wisely. But in estimates debate, the last few spring sessions, we seem to have managed our way through that without a quarrel or a quibble. So not a dime without debate.

The second principle really should be no laws without clause by clause. That's really where we're at just now. Is it reasonable, given 6½ days, to be able to get through the legislation that's in front of us, including the provincial sales tax bill that was tabled yesterday and is 160 pages long?

In my time here I've seen lots of bills come before us that have been declared as housekeeping bills. When I spoke with some folks about the struggles we're having here around legislation, some people, including some of the media, said: "Well, a lot of it is just housekeeping."

The reality is that even in housekeeping bills, a miscellaneous statutes amendments act, like Bill 41, you have to be very, very careful because there are substantive changes that are made that without the clause-by-clause analysis, without asking questions of the minister, you don't get to see what the implications of that are.

In the case of Bill 41, of course, we've got the attempted reinstitution of the election gag law, as well as the contentious clauses around the resort municipalities.

But we've also seen in this House that when a bill comes into the House, it may not be complete in and of itself, and therefore, we get amendments on the order paper from government. We get amendments offered by opposition members, who have read the bill and gone to the minister, put forward amendments that become government amendments.

We've had a couple of classic examples of that. The member for Cowichan Valley substantively changed one bill in forestry that had an egregious oversight when it was introduced. When that oversight was revealed to him, the minister clearly understood that it was an oversight and fixed the bill. Kudos to both the opposition deputy critic and the minister on that.

In this session we've seen the same with the member for Saanich South and the animal protection act, where two amendments were put forward to try to make that bill better.

So there is real work to be done. But unfortunately, a lot of time on bills is spent in second reading — and I'll speak on that in a moment — where the real work is actually done in committee stage, where it's not as politicized and where there's a clear and evident desire to understand what we're doing to British Columbians in the form of legislation.

In response to the 6½ days left — 21 plus one more bill coming, including the PST; the three estimates; etc. — the Government House Leader has come forward with two motions. There was an attempt last week to make a unanimous motion on the part of the House so we could get at it last week, but that was rejected by the opposition.

The two motions are to add a third section. So the third section…. We would have this chamber debating a bill. We would have another committee room debating a bill, and we would have a committee room continuing with the estimates debate, as is our normal practice. Our normal practice is legislation in this chamber and a committee for estimates.

The Government House Leader indicated that a substantive change on the part of government was to avoid legislation by exhaustion by going to the fixed calendar. I guess that my response to that would be the government uses the fixed calendar as a guideline. Why can't we use it as a guideline now? It's not fixed as an end date. We should simply sit until we believe that a comprehensive debate in committee stage of each of the pieces of legislation in front of us has been completed.

[1500]

Now, the government is attempting to do this by committee and so on. I still think that we'll end up with some kind of closure or guillotine or something, because we're just simply not going to get through the legislation. Even
[ Page 11973 ]
with the motions in front of us, that won't happen.

That's unfortunate. I stood in this House and was the only member to vote against the Yale treaty, in part on the simple principle that we got four or five pages into a 400-page treaty — I think we actually got to 20, to be fair. The only public scrutiny done on that treaty was in this chamber. And yet, through closure, that treaty was passed. I think that that is a diminishment of our democratic process.

I think we're still going to end up, even with this so-called fix of extended hours or evening sittings and a third section…. The Government House Leader indicated that he believes that there are seasoned critics on the part of the opposition, and I would agree with that. I am struggling to understand the opposition's contention that we can't have an additional chamber.

I will be voting against the motion because I believe it's the eleventh hour in adding that additional chamber. But I do believe that we need to look at the possibilities of us, in a heavy legislative session — where the government knows that there's going to be a heavy legislative agenda — having an upfront discussion about making sure that legislation does get full scrutiny. That includes the possibility of a third chamber. I don't have a problem with that. I think it is an appropriate step to take by consensus, by collaboration, in agreement at the beginning of the session, but not at the eleventh hour.

As a response to the two motions, the Opposition House Leader offers that it's an abuse, that the government does abuse the fixed calendar when it suits its purposes and it's not democratic to go to a third section. Everybody has spoken to that. But there's also the question of the mismanagement of the legislative calendar. I have to say that I believe we have a time management issue on both sides of the House. Both political parties have to really think long and hard about the hyperpartisanship that has come to characterize not just this House but many legislative chambers.

What we do is we spend an inordinate amount of time on second reading of bills, which is the political stage, if you will. It's where both parties get to make ideological arguments, partisan arguments, browbeat each other. This side, the opposition side, throws the "decade of deceit" against the "dismal decade" from the government side. That, I believe, doesn't serve our democracy well.

It's not necessary. If we go back and look at how much time is spent in second reading of bills without really a substantive or a constructive contribution to the bill itself, a lot of talk about politics…. I think there's time that we could save and could have saved, even in this session. Notwithstanding that, it is inconceivable that even fixing that and moving to committee stage faster — having the critics speak and a couple of opposition members speak on substantive aspects of the bill that are important and moving to committee stage, the clause-by-clause stage….

This government introduced legislation very, very late in this session. That either shows gross mismanagement on the government's side, or a lack of clarity on what their agenda is. Hence, we have the grammatical errors and syntax errors and things in the bills that just don't make sense. That suggests that there may be errors and omissions in the bills as well.

So I do think that they deserve scrutiny. Instead of using these two motions to grab a little bit of extra time and still having a lot of partisanship infuse the debate through to the end of session and then government still having to use some sort of guillotine to stop debate and pass this legislation, including the provincial sales tax legislation, quite frankly, without a substantive clause-by-clause examination…. We still have the Family Day Act that has to have people speak to that and then go into its one page clause-by-clause.

[1505]

I think we need to end the partisanship. I think British Columbians want that of us. I'm convinced of that. I think it's why people don't show up at the polls. I think it's why people think that this place is an anachronism and has no value in it anymore, because that's what they see — just this constant partisanship.

If we were more constructive, more deliberate in between elections…. So every four years, we've got that 28-day window where we have to go at each other, and say count back 40 days before that…. But in between that if we actually worked together as much as we could to govern and constrained ourselves to constructive debate in this chamber, I think we could claw back some interest, and we could claw back some voters during the election window. It would serve British Columbians well and serve our democracy well.

I would hope that what we end up seeing…. The Government House Leader said that a third chamber is the next evolution for our democracy. I think the next evolution for our democracy is substantively changing the way we do politics but also substantively changing committees.

I think that we should stop with sessional committees that keep having to be struck over and over again and/or get a mandate or not. We should have permanent standing committees associated with the sitting of the Legislature. We should have committees structured in a way, as the Deputy Speaker and the MLA for Richmond East pointed out in an article in the parliamentary journal, that allow us to ask questions of staff.

I think that in both estimates debate and in bill debate it is absolutely unnecessary for us to continue to have a question asked by an opposition member, then the government minister turn to his or her staff and get a briefing on the answer to the question and then turn back, and if they can't figure out what the answer is, give a political answer instead of a substantive one. That takes up a whole lot of time. In estimates debate and in bill debate, a lot of time is wasted in that transfer of knowledge
[ Page 11974 ]
from staff to the minister, the minister to the opposition critic, who then asks another question, and you repeat it all over again.

We need to look at a committee structure where we can actually get access to staff. We can get access to experts to help us to understand the legislation in front of us and to help us more clearly understand the bills. That is what many jurisdictions do. They have that relationship. It builds a stronger relationship between the government members and the opposition members with the bureaucracy and cuts out a lot of the politics associated with debate on legislation and with debate on estimates.

I would also suggest that Liberal backbenchers, the government backbenchers in the general case, should also be allowed to ask questions in bill debate and ask questions in estimates debate because they too are accountable to their people.

So committees need to change. The bills and estimates should be debated in a way that we can get access to the expertise that created it and stop the political filter.

I guess the final comment I would like to make is that if this place actually operated in a more consensual and collaborative fashion, then we would have House Leaders and Whips and leaders that would actually sit down at the beginning of a session and say: "Here's where we're going." They don't have to reveal all of the bits and pieces. They don't have to reveal the details of the various pieces of legislation, but: "In the spring we have a heavy legislative calendar, and we have the budget debates. Can we agree on a third chamber?"

The third chamber comes in at X time, and we're not in the eleventh hour debating a motion like this. We know that we're going to go to evening sittings, and if necessary, the fixed end date for that session will be struck, taken away, and we will extend the session to get the work done.

Quite frankly, everybody believes that this is the place…. We're supposed to be here to do work, and if there's work to be done, we should be doing it on as non-political and non-partisan a basis as possible into the substance of bills and estimates. We should do it until we believe that that substance has been fully canvassed in the best interests of British Columbians.

This is too late in the day. I do support — and I signal to government that I support — a third chamber. We can figure it out as independents. We can figure out how to manage our time and use our staffs to do that, but it has to be done a lot earlier than the eleventh hour. I do believe that we need democratic reform of this place so that we can get to substance more quickly.

[1510]

C. James: I rise to speak to Motion 47. As others have mentioned, this is a motion that looks at adding a third chamber, a third committee House, in the Legislature.

I think the public will be asking themselves, as they watch some of this discussion and debate, why we're faced with this motion. Why has this motion come forward?

The Liberals, in fact, brought in a fixed legislative calendar a number of years ago. What was the idea? I think it's also worth the public knowing what the idea was behind the fixed legislative calendar.

I have to say that it's not very often that I rise in this House and say that there are things I agree with that the government has done on the other side, but the fixed legislative calendar was something I agreed with. I think it made good sense. It made good sense for the members in this chamber. It made good sense for the public to know certainty. It made sense for staff. It was a good direction to come forward.

The direction and the idea at the time, when I listened to the debate, was to give time for debate, to give time for consultation, to give certainty to people about when things were going to be debated and when things were going to be discussed.

It also was meant to…. I'll get to this in a minute, because I think this is the important crux of the discussion we're having. It was also meant, if the legislative calendar was full in the spring, to give a chance for the government to table legislation and then a chance for it to come back again in the fall — to not have to rush through discussion, to not have to rush through debate — and also a chance for a second look at legislation — a chance, perhaps, for the public or those who are involved out there to have a look at the legislation, to make recommendations, to bring forward ideas. That's all a direction that I support.

But I think what we've seen with the introduction of this motion, with the introduction of Motion 47, is that the government has completely given up on any idea around a legislative calendar, any idea around a public consultation and has certainly given up any idea of giving the public a chance to have any kind of input.

You'll remember that the issue of the legislative calendar was all part of the open government agenda that came forward from the B.C. Liberals when they were first elected. You'll remember open cabinet meetings. That was something that went by the wayside quite quickly.

We also heard the government talk about open government and more opportunities for freedom of information, more opportunities for information to be out there. Well, I'll get to that as I go on talking about this motion and the concerns that people have raised around bills that have been introduced. That certainly has gone by the wayside now as well. I think what we're seeing today with this motion is that the fixed legislative calendar has also gone by the wayside.

I heard the Government House Leader, when he rose to speak to introducing this motion, say that this is simply the evolution of a fixed calendar. But there's no evolution here. This motion isn't an evolution. This motion is just a way to get around a fixed calendar and ram through debate and ram through discussion. That's all this is.
[ Page 11975 ]

It isn't an opportunity to be able to give more debate or to give more time. It's a hope of getting things through quickly, instead of taking the opportunity to bring things forward in the fall.

If you take a look at the reality of a fall session, since the election in 2005…. In 2006 we sat for one week in the fall. In 2007 we actually had a fall session, but that's unique if you look at the history. In 2008 we sat for one week; 2009, we had no fall session; 2010, again no fall session. In 2011 we had a fall session. We had a new Premier, and the fall session was the beginning of this session that we're now continuing on.

[1515]

But I think we've missed huge opportunities through that fixed legislative calendar — as I said, a rare event that government brought forward that I actually supported. I think the Government House Leader raising the issues of this being an evolution really shows how quickly anything to do with consultation, with openness, with transparency, with full debate, with public input has completely gone by the wayside.

I think the other important question that will be discussed out there is why the public should care. I think this is at the crux of this debate and the crux of this motion that's come forward. The Legislature is a place where the public and the media and the opposition get a chance to be able to hold the government to account. I don't take that lightly. I don't take that role and responsibility lightly.

I believe that I am accountable to the public as an MLA. I'm elected by the people in my community, and I am accountable to them. I'm here to serve them — not to be here on my own, not for my own purposes, but to serve the people in my community. I believe the public has a right to know where I stand on issues, how I feel about issues. They have a right to know that.

They also have a right to know that as an MLA, I have an opportunity to be able to scrutinize legislation that comes forward, to be able to do that on behalf of my constituents, but also to be able to do that on behalf of the people who will be impacted by that legislation.

I think the other expectation that the public has is that their members will speak — that they'll speak in this House, speak on record. The reason that we have Hansard, and our opportunity for that, is so the public can go back and take a look and see where their members stood. Then when they have an opportunity for the ultimate accountability when it comes to the election year, they have a chance to be able to weigh where members have stood, what people have said on bills, and I think that's critical. I think we cannot take that lightly.

Democracy isn't always easy. It isn't always clean and tidy. It doesn't always stick to a certain exact direction to go, but the alternative is worse. Democracy is important to uphold and protect, and I believe the opportunity to speak on legislation and give the chance for the public to have a say on legislation and those who are impacted by legislation is critical to not only good democracy but good government.

Let's take a look for a moment at the number of bills that still have to be debated that are either at second reading or at committee stage, because I think, again, that's the importance here. We have seven bills that are waiting for second reading. We have 14 that are waiting for committee stage. We have a bill that's still at first reading — seven days left in the legislative calendar. We have a bill that is 160 pages long with 255 sections. Now, that's going to take some time to debate.

The HST bill — that's going to take some time to debate, and there may be a number of people who wish to speak on that bill. That's going to be made more difficult by dividing off into three different places with MLAs when bills are being debated, when estimates are happening, when we know that people are required to be in places for bills that are coming up. They may not get a chance to be able to be in estimates and ask their question on behalf of their community.

I don't think that adding a little bit of time into the legislative session would have been an imposition on anybody in this Legislature. In fact, I think most of the public would say to themselves when they took a look at that schedule — that we didn't sit in the fall of 2009, that we didn't sit in the fall of 2010 — that it wouldn't be so bad for the members of this Legislature to spend a bit more time in here to give a bit more opportunity for debate, to give a bit more opportunity to scrutinize the legislation.

We even had bills come forward that had typos and spelling mistakes in them, which again shows a rush, a rush around bringing forward legislation, not thoroughness in taking a look at the legislation.

[1520]

There is no need. I think the frustration that you're hearing on this motion is the frustration that there wasn't a need to rush. There are pieces of legislation that are here. There are bills that are on the docket right now that could be put over until the fall and that could benefit in fact from having a second look at the pieces of legislation.

I think that the other important point in all of this is that none of this builds faith in the public. It doesn't build faith in the political system. They feel that the government is rushing to get out of here, because the date is there and it's important to get out, instead of saying: "We brought in more legislation than we might have planned at the beginning of the session." Certainly, others have mentioned that the government could have planned better.

Putting that aside, if there were pieces of legislation that the government felt they needed to bring forward and they hadn't planned for, there is no reason that I can see that the government couldn't have said: "Let's bring those forward, and let's finish debating them in the fall." If they had done that, there would have been support on this side of the Legislature and, I believe, broad support
[ Page 11976 ]
by the public.

This motion that we're talking about today, that we have to take time on today wouldn't have been necessary. We could have actually gone through what a fixed legislative calendar was supposed to do. When the public sees this kind of motion coming forward, they feel that there's a reason that government wants to rush through that legislation, and it doesn't build trust in our political system. It doesn't give the public a chance to give feedback or have a say.

That's part of what I see right now in people losing faith in the political system. They feel they have no opportunity to be able to influence what happens. Building trust and faith in the political system should be the job of all of us as legislators. It shouldn't be the job of government. It shouldn't be the job of opposition. It should be the job of all of us. We all have a responsibility to build support for democracy, to build faith in the political system — not partisan politics but the political system itself. That's critical.

You certainly would have imagined, Madam Speaker, that the government would have learned from past legislative sessions, when they brought legislation forward and then had to come back and correct it, or they brought legislation forward that was controversial, that created difficulties and problems. The government seems to have forgotten, on the other side, the rationale for bringing forward the fixed legislative calendar that would have prevented us having to debate this motion.

In 2006 the then House Leader said, and this was in regard to bills that were being debated in the Legislature, "The government believes it would be beneficial to hear further from those with views on these bills," and the government decided not to proceed with the legislation. Well, that was 2006, and that was an agreement between the Opposition House Leader and the Government House Leader.

That's just the kind of discussion that we attempted to have with the government, and that's exactly the kind of direction that I believe the fixed legislative calendar was brought in for. It was to give an opportunity, to quote the former Government House Leader, to hear further from those with views on the bills, to give an opportunity — what a unique thing, to give an opportunity — for the public to be able to have input on something that might impact them. Wouldn't that be amazing if that was top of the list for a government?

I certainly believe that it would be better government than we have now if you actually gave an opportunity for people to give input on something that's going to impact them directly.

We didn't come forward to vote against this motion without coming forward and putting ideas on the table, trying to be proactive and productive.

[1525]

We recognized that there were a number of pieces of legislation that were being introduced. We recognized that the legislative calendar was getting shorter, that we were having less and less time to be able to debate some very weighty bills, some important bills — and I'll get to talking about the specifics of those bills that this motion is referring to.

We actually came forward to the Government House Leader and said: "Let's look at a couple of options." Certainly, our preferred option would have been to come back in the fall, to actually follow what the legislative calendar was put in place for, to be able to come back, have full debate, have a good discussion, give the opportunity for the public to have a say. That would have been the ideal.

But we recognize that there might be a few reasons why the government on the other side doesn't want to come back in the fall. We understand that, and so we actually put forward another idea. We suggested to the government that they could actually look at extending the session for a couple of weeks — again, not to manage our time as MLAs but to manage the time of the public, to give them an opportunity to be able to read the pieces of legislation that had been introduced and to provide their feedback to their elected members.

I come back again, Madam Speaker, to the reason we're here. We're here because we're elected to represent our communities and the people who elected us. They have a right to be able to give feedback on legislation and get that back to us as legislators. So this isn't simply about managing our time; this is about giving the public an opportunity.

If you took a look at the HST bill yesterday, and you think about the public taking a look at a bill and trying to manage something that is 160 pages long with 255 sections, that's going to take a little bit of time. We now have a total of seven days, soon to be six days, to be able to debate this.

I think it's important to recognize that solutions were brought forward, that we did provide an opportunity for the government to sit down with us, to move bills forward to the fall or extend the session for a couple weeks to give the public a chance to have a say. Sadly, that was ignored.

I mentioned other bills. Unfortunately, we've seen before what's happened with this government when they have brought in closure, when they have tried to pass bills without any kind of thorough debate.

We've seen pieces of legislation that have had to come back with amendments. We've seen bills that have had to come back two or three times to be fixed. We've seen pieces of legislation passed that have had negative impacts in our province. And we've seen pieces of legislation passed that, if they'd had the opportunity for the public to have a say, they might have actually had a better bill introduced, a better piece of legislation.

Again, I think it's important — just as I talked ear-
[ Page 11977 ]
lier about the fact that I see myself here representing the public, not representing myself — that the government should see those pieces of legislation as British Columbia's legislation, because they impact all of the people in our province. Yes, it's introduced as the Liberal government's legislation, but once those bills are passed and in law they impact everyone in our province.

I'm certain that there were bills that have been introduced, that if the government had gone out to talk to the public and asked for their input or tabled them in the Legislature in the spring and then moved them ahead to the fall, that would have been better pieces of legislation and wouldn't have necessitated the motion that we see today.

They wouldn't have required the motion that we see today, and wouldn't that have been an amazing change for our province? Wouldn't it be nice to have a little less confrontation, a little less uncertainty and more opportunities for the public to have a say?

I just want to take a moment, Madam Speaker, to speak to the specific bills that this motion refers to. This motion is referring to the pieces of legislation that are left to be debated. This motion speaks to a number of committees — a number of Houses, as they call them in the Legislature — where we will be debating the bills.

[1530]

There are some very specific concerns that have come forward on bills that we have left still to debate. The biggest concerns that have come forward are the concerns that have come from the Information and Privacy Commissioner. I think it's important to put on record that there are four separate bills that the commissioner has expressed concern on. It is unprecedented to have four pieces of legislation come forward in one session, where four letters had to be written by the Information and Privacy Commissioner expressing concerns.

Those are bills, again, if this motion wasn't here, that the government could then take to the fall and fix the problems, in many cases, that had been identified by the Information and Privacy Commissioner. She says: "The balance in the statutes has long been established, and it should only be altered after thorough public consultation and discussion. In my view the government has not looked thoroughly enough at the existing law, nor have they communicated to the public why the existing balance isn't going to work."

That's a pretty strong statement. I would say that that's reason enough to not support this motion but to in fact take those pieces of legislation and move them to the fall to give an opportunity, just as the Information and Privacy Commissioner has said, to be able to communicate to the public about why these changes are being made. Then the public can make their mind up about whether they support them or not, just as we will, as legislators, make our decision about whether we support them or not.

But without that conversation, without that discussion — and this motion does not give us the opportunity to have that discussion — you end up with the kind of difficulty that the Information and Privacy Commissioner outlines so clearly here.

Now, let's take a look specifically at the bills. There are pieces that have been raised and specifics on bills…. Again, as I mentioned, the Privacy Commissioner's concerns are enough to be able to look at a fall session. But if not, let's look at some of the specifics on the bills.

We have a bill coming forward — Bill 44, for the public who is looking at it — that is related to civil dispute resolution. This is a bill that, again, has some very good intentions in it but also has some red flags that have been raised by various groups and organizations. If this motion hadn't come forward, we would be able to move that bill to the fall and give a chance for people to be able to have input.

I think the most important flag that's been raised on the discussion of this individual bill is the fact that government is in the middle of a consultation process on the entire justice system. Here we have one piece of the justice system coming forward for changes, in this bill, in the middle of a consultation process that says: "Let's look at everything in our justice system, and let's decide whether it's good or bad or we should change it."

Why wouldn't you get rid of this motion and take that piece of legislation and make it part of the public consultation process on the justice system? Wouldn't that make perfect sense? And we have an opportunity to do that. We have an opportunity to do that by moving this forward, by getting rid of this motion and moving this forward to the fall.

A couple of groups have spoken out on exactly that. The Canadian Bar Association, which certainly expected to be consulted, has said that issues raised by the draft legislation "are the reasons why the Canadian Bar Association sought out the ability to consult and collaborate on civil justice system reform issues identified in the government's recent…paper. Instead of collaboration and consultation, the government simply introduced the legislation."

I mentioned the Information and Privacy Commissioner's concerns. Now we have the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch — their concerns. Again, another voice that speaks very clearly for following a fixed legislative calendar, moving these pieces of legislation to the fall and not supporting the motion that's here in the Legislature in front of us today.

They weren't the only voices that were raised. The trial lawyers also expressed their concern. They said the bill was introduced and drafted without consultation just three months, they pointed out again, after the review was announced. Surely, again, you should be including these parts of the bills as part of the consultation on the justice system.
[ Page 11978 ]

I think there's a Victoria lawyer that also spoke out, Michael Mulligan, who said: "The poorly thought-out concepts in this legislation…shouldn't be a surprise, given that it was introduced without meaningful consultation."

[1535]

I read these pieces around this specific piece of legislation because it points out to me how important it is for government to take another look at this motion that we have in front of us and take another look at the opportunity to strengthen its own legislation by giving the public and the people who know what's going on a chance to have a say.

I think, in fact, there are many pieces in civil dispute resolution that I support. I support looking at opportunities to move people out of the court system, to be able to find resolution. In fact, on this piece of legislation, the government did have some discussions with the strata association, and the strata association said they're in support of what's there.

Why wouldn't the government want to model that with most of its legislation? You won't get agreement on everything, but why wouldn't they? Why wouldn't they want to take this motion and move it off and say to the public: "We're going to give you an opportunity to have a say on your legislation." Why wouldn't you want to consult?

I think the only thing the public could take a look at is that the government is afraid to learn something. If you talk to people who are impacted by the legislation, you might actually learn something. You might actually learn that there are pieces of your legislation that could be stronger. You might learn that there are pieces that should be changed. You might actually learn that there are people in the field who know more than you.

I think that's the big difficulty that I see in this motion coming forward — that the government seems to think that they know best and that it's not going to take the time to be able to consult people. It's not going to take the time to allow debate or discussion. Sadly, I would say that that is a trait we've seen with this government.

What other discussions might take place if we got rid of this motion and actually had some time? We could have a discussion on the Emergency and Health Services Amendment Act. That's a bill where they're going to change the types of jobs that paramedics do with no discussion with the paramedics. The Animal Health Act is another area where the Privacy Commissioner has raised all kinds of concerns. If we didn't have this motion, we could actually look at a fall session, and we could look at extending the session.

I went to speak last week, on Friday, to a grade 4-5 class. I talked about the role of an MLA. I spent some time with these very insightful, amazing young people who gave me huge hope for the future to talk to them.

I talked about tabling legislation. I talked about that specifically as part of my discussion about what the job of an MLA is — tabling legislation, having a debate, going out and talking to people who know that area, bringing that discussion back into the Legislature and how important that was.

The children got it. They understood that. They understood that if you're going to bring a piece of legislation in that talks about changes to the justice system, you might talk to people who are in the justice system. If you're going to talk about making changes to something like the paramedics, you actually might want to talk to the paramedics.

I think it's very clear to me that the government isn't interested in hearing public voices. You would have thought they would have learned — the HST being, of course, the best or worst example of a government not listening and not learning from their mistakes — what happens when you don't consult, what happens when you don't give an opportunity to improve what's there. That's certainly what I see with this motion that has come forward now.

I would hope the government would still…. They still have an opportunity to withdraw this motion, to be able to add some time to the legislative calendar or to be able to move things forward to the fall.

Give the public a chance to be able to be heard. Give the MLAs a chance to represent the public, because that's what this is about. And perhaps give the opportunity for this government to learn a little something.

L. Krog: What is it the Bible says? "To everything there is a season."

I think it's important that I remind the House that I have said on various occasions in this chamber that Gordon Campbell, the person whose name cannot be mentioned here now…. He is referred to as the predecessor by the members opposite, or words to that effect. He introduced a very important reform, and I use the term "reform" very directly, because I think it is important to recognize the reform that existed.

[1540]

When I was first elected to this chamber in 1991 to '96, as the saying went, the government opened and the opposition closed. Indeed, the Government House Leader today was complaining — I think quite eloquently, for a little while anyway — about how this place used to operate — how it dragged through the summer, how he missed time with his family, how he missed summer events, how he missed being with his constituents.

I think it's important today, as I open my remarks on Motion 47, to pay my respects to Gordon Campbell for introducing that change, for going to a fixed legislative calendar. The Premier took the words from the Bible, I think, to heart and understood that to everything there was a season.

In the spring you passed a budget, and in the fall you dealt with legislation that was left over from the spring
[ Page 11979 ]
session because you accepted that it was a good thing in our political system for members to go back to their constituents, to go back to their families, to attend those summer barbecues and summer events and festivals, to acquaint themselves with issues of concern — sensible, logical.

Now, we are a society that is ruled by law. Our constitution. Unlike the Americans, who talk about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we talk about peace, order and good government. We operate under rules because they have a purpose. We operate under rules because it allows for the orderly conduct of civilization, if you will. It reduces conflict. It allows for things to be dealt with in a timely way. And whenever someone is trying to rush you, generally speaking, it's not a good thing.

Now, there may be the occasion where they believe it's in your best interest to hurry you along, get you to an event or make sure the present is bought for mother at Christmastime. There are times when it's important to push people along to make sure what happens, happens. But in the B.C. Legislature, when the government is trying to rush you along — and it doesn't matter what government is in power — generally speaking, it's not a good thing, not quite the right message.

My sense is that when you look at the list of legislation — and it's been repeated by other members, but I think it bears repeating again this afternoon — since February this year we have had 32 bills tabled, a total of 954 pages. More than half of them, 17, have been tabled since April 30. We've got a grand total of two bills in February; nine bills in March; four in April, prior to April 30; six, April 30 to May 3; ten bills from May 7 to May 10, in four short days; and a bill so far this week, the PST bill.

Now, again, in the spirit of confession and acknowledgment…. Notwithstanding that I wasn't raised a Catholic, I've always had great admiration for the concept of confession and absolution. In the spirit of that, there were probably occasions, even under NDP governments, where the legislative agenda tended to be tilted somewhat towards the end.

But it was the opposition's choice, in those circumstances, how long they wished to debate those bills. The price to be paid was the sacrifices that the Government House Leader talked about. It was family, an opportunity to go to see constituents, whatever the case may be. But it was the opposition's choice.

Who are the opposition? They are elected members of this assembly, required by their oath of office to uphold the law, to represent their constituents as loyal members of the opposition, to criticize the government, to keep the government on its toes, to ensure that Her Majesty's business is done appropriately.

So you're left with this nagging confession, as I say, about the fact that the government's legislative agenda sometimes does get tilted towards the end of session. Without wishing to be too critical of the government, the numbers I just read out about the amount of bills tells you….

[1545]

Particularly when you look at the number of pages of bills and the complexity of the legislation and the lack of consultation around the legislation, you're rather drawn to the conclusion that this government may be pushing the outer limits of tolerance when it comes to their legislative agenda.

What are they trying to do? They are trying to ensure that they can get their business, from their perspective, done by May 31. We have today, tomorrow and the day after — this week — and then we have four more sitting days. We have a total of seven sitting days to get through several hundred pages of complex legislation.

Two motions are before the House, one that we break into a third House, as if we were some magical daffodil bulbs in the springtime, dividing and dividing year after year until we fill the field with the glory of our beauty. I suppose if we carried this argument to the full extent, we'd just get every member to bring a bill into this place, talk to themselves for five or ten minutes and pass it. We could have 85 bills done in a day. Now, I'm being a bit cheeky when I say that, but that's sort of the logic that this leads to.

Notwithstanding what the member for Cariboo North said…. Frankly, I couldn't agree with him less when he said that independent members of this Legislature can be in three places at the same time or handle it through their staff or deal with it effectively. I have to respectfully disagree completely with his remarks. It is no less a challenge for members of this House, whether they sit on the government or opposition benches, to do their job effectively if this place is running in three chambers.

There are older, experienced hands in the political process in this province, including Rafe Mair, who always said that once you took estimates out of the House and put it in the second chamber, that was bad enough for democracy because it lowered the importance of what this place does in its essence, which is sanction the taxation of citizens to support the government. His view — perhaps a bit outdated now, given prevailing views and practice in this chamber — was that that was a bad thing.

We're now being asked to consider breaking into three sections, diluting what happens even more. Now, there was a time when it was a crime in this country to dilute whisky. I'm not suggesting for a moment that this chamber has any resemblance to whisky, but there's a point at which you dilute something to the extent that it really doesn't have much value anymore. That's my concern.

By breaking into three chambers, we dilute this place to the point where, perhaps, no one pays attention to what's going on in here. Perhaps it's unimportant. But surely, all of us who sought election to this place…. It was mentioned the other day by the Clerk in the assembly that only 883 British Columbians, including the member
[ Page 11980 ]
sitting beside me today now, have had the privilege of being able to speak and sit in this chamber.

What we do here is important. I've made that speech a dozen times. It is important what we do here. And when the government proposes that we step back and break this place into three little chambers, it's essentially saying: "What we do here isn't important."

I was very intrigued this morning to listen to the Government House Leader when he said, with some frustration: "We've lost two days. If the opposition had given leave, we could have been debating this motion last week. We've lost two days."

I thought: "Who lost two days?" Did the people of British Columbia lose two days? Did the opposition lose two days? By what miracle of math did the Government House Leader come to the conclusion that somehow two days had been lost in this process? It is the duty, it is the right, it is the obligation of the members of this assembly to speak when they believe it appropriate to do so.

Now, some will cynically say: "They only speak when the government Whip or the opposition Whip tells them to do it." There's an element of that, because we understand that this place has to operate on the basis of rules.

[1550]

The rules of this House say we have legislation in the main chamber — except for, usually, the Premier's estimates — and the other chamber is for estimates. Now we're proposing to break it up into three.

Why do we have the rules that there are only two? I suspect it's because a previous generation of legislators decided it was the right thing to do, that it made sense, that there was, as I said, a season.

When Premier Campbell was in office, he decided that rather than have legislation by exhaustion — in other words, to let the opposition talk themselves till they were exhausted, not the government…. When the opposition ran out of steam, the place shut and they went home. This place ceased to operate.

Now we are being told that we have to jam, in seven days, several hundred pages of legislation and numerous bills through this process, through this Legislature, through what is the crucible of democracy in this province because the government couldn't manage its agenda appropriately and there are no alternatives.

Many members have spoken about the alternatives — the offer of the Opposition House Leader to allow for two more weeks of sitting. A pretty reasonable proposal. It's not going to cut too much into the summertime of any of us or interfere too much with our constituency work — two more weeks, the 26th of the year. Put in terms…. What is it? Four percent? Not the end of the world.

But this place, in its wisdom, decided some time ago that the appropriate alternative for this, the logical alternative, is that we would come back in the fall. Now, I don't know if the other members have made plans for this fall. I doubt it. I never do. I know that October and November are set aside in my calendar for me to be here.

That's what I tell my constituents. That's what I tell my constituency executive. That's what I tell the reporters for the local papers and the radio station. That's what I tell anyone who cares to listen or pay attention. We're supposed to be back here in the fall.

Now, we know — others have spoken to it, and I'm not going to go through the statistics — we have come back here for very brief occasions under this Liberal government in the fall. We have rarely sat out what I will call a full or a fulsome session in the fall. I just haven't heard from the other side, notwithstanding the wisdom of the government — and I'm sure it's there — the wisdom or the explanation that says why we can't do that this year.

I appreciate that there were some on the loony fringe, so to speak, who think this is, 2012, the end of the world — according to the Mayan calendar. But I'm relatively satisfied, notwithstanding that the Liberals are in power, that we'll actually make it through to December 31 this year. It's okay. We can actually plan on being here in the fall. The world will not end in a cataclysm. So I don't see any particular reason — nor have I had an explanation, as I say, from the government — as to why we can't do that this year.

The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill mentioned a number of justice bills. Now, you can tell from the comments in the paper and the expression of frustration from organizations like the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association that they didn't get the kind of consultation that is appropriate around legislation.

In fairness, often government does that. Governments of either stripe, any stripe, consult with those impacted by the legislation, or the groups that represent business or industry, or labour unions, or professions, or average citizens, citizens with a particular interest. They consult with them.

[1555]

Every capable minister knows what the lists are of the organizations and groups that will be affected by their legislation. They have extraordinary public servants who advise them, who'll be able to say: "Yes, Minister, we consulted with all these groups, and this is their position."

Then the minister, then cabinet, then this assembly can make a decision as to whether or not the legislation proposed is good, is bad, is fair, is timely, is not timely, is too expensive, is an appropriate solution to a problem or — on occasion, one has to acknowledge — is a solution looking for a problem.

That didn't happen with a number of the bills before this House. When you've got distinguished counsel, members of the bar like Michael T. Mulligan, writing with respect to Bills 44 and 52: "While thrift and speed are plainly desirable attributes, the legislation as drafted is a poorly thought-out mess…."

Now, if this were a classroom and I got back a comment from my teacher that said it was a poorly thought-
[ Page 11981 ]
out mess, I think I might be rather hurt. I think I might take the suggestion from my teacher that I should pull up my socks, as they say — that it might be appropriate for me to go back and reconsider the amount of effort I've put into this or what my concerns around my future education should be.

Mr. Mulligan comments further on: "The poorly thought-out concepts in this legislation perhaps shouldn't be a surprise, given that it was introduced without any meaningful consultation." That's just on 44 and 52. It's not the only legislation where there wasn't much contribution or public consultation.

Deputy Speaker: On coming back to the motion.

L. Krog: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Having said that, the proposal to break us into three chambers, as opposed to dealing with this problem by coming back in the fall, with great respect, I don't think passes the commonsense test.

The Government House Leader talked about legislation by exhaustion. We'll have the whole summer to get rested for a fall sitting. Everyone will be raring to go. My, we might even get the blush back on this fading rose of a government. We may see them revive themselves and be ready to face the opposition with renewed vigour to defend their legislation. They'll have also had the opportunity to do consultation.

From my perspective as one of the co-critics for the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General…. We've got Mr. Cowper out there in the province — his name's been mentioned in this House already today — doing his best to see what solutions he can find to assist the justice system, which is in such disarray in the province and which is the subject of criticism of every reputable organization that has anything to do with the justice system in this province. But he's being undercut by the process.

Two significant changes to practice in our justice system, introduced without consultation. No particular necessity that these bills be passed this spring, when they could, potentially, be passed in the fall, when they could be the subject of appropriate debate.

The Government House Leader also said something to the effect, as I recall this morning, that we debate for hours that we don't want to go to work. That's what he said — that we debate for hours that we don't want to go to work. If I were a sensitive human being — and I can be on occasion — I might be hurt by that remark.

One of the things that even my sainted wife complains about is that I work too hard and spend too much time at this job. I suspect, noting the smiles in the chamber, that I'm not the only person who has a spouse who's made that kind of comment.

So I found it somewhat insulting that the Government House Leader would suggest for a moment that the opposition wanted to debate for hours that we don't want to go to work. We do indeed want to go to work. We want to go to work in the fall. We want to work for the rest of this session. We're just asking for the opportunity to do that.

[1600]

The government, instead, prefers its own solution to suit its own agenda. Well, perhaps the polling is what it is today for this government because the people of British Columbia are getting the sense that maybe the government's agenda isn't their agenda. Maybe the reason the government wants to jam this through is for its own purposes. It's not for the good of British Columbians.

Notwithstanding my temptation to go on at great length, let me just sum up by saying this. Common sense says we have a fall sitting and we should use it. There is no reason for me to have to go back to my constituents and, when they see me in my office in the fall, in October and November — there instead of down here — and have to explain to them, "Well, the reason I'm not in Victoria is because the government chose to jam through legislation in the spring, poorly thought out" — some of which, hon. Speaker, we know is to correct mistakes that were made as a result of past government action in this area that has forced the government to go back and correct its mistakes.

[D. Black in the chair.]

I don't think I should have to go back and do that. I think I should be able to say to my constituents: "Don't expect to see me very much in October and November. I'll be doing your business. I'll be doing the people's business here in Victoria." Obviously, we've got a fair bit on the list already. Surely, the government would enjoy the prospect of question period in the fall so that they can provide answers to the questions of the opposition and the people of British Columbia, whose voice we are as well. Surely that would be reasonable.

I'm going to vote against this motion. I think it's bad practice. It's not necessary. Hon. Speaker, I suspect if you ask the average British Columbian, "Do you think your MLA should be working in the fall in Victoria or back in the constituency?" they would answer resoundingly: "I thought that's what we elected them for — to go to Victoria to represent our views, to speak in the B.C. Legislature, to enjoy the honour and privilege that's been conferred upon them."

I just suggest to the government's side that maybe they might want to reconsider their position on this motion. Maybe they should just reconsider.

We offer the olive branch here so often, and they keep rejecting it. When the opposition offers something to the government that would assist them — much as the member for Saanich South did around legislation that, indeed, led the Minister of Agriculture to agree to an amendment to his own bill…. When you offer that kind of cooperation, why would you reject it, and why would you turn
[ Page 11982 ]
down the opportunity to do the job that we were all elected to do? So let us do our job in a timely way.

As I began, to everything there is a season. Let us have that fall sitting. Let us step back from another example of what British Columbians, according to polling, would indicate is a perceived arrogance on the part of this government. Let them step back from that. Let them take this opportunity.

I sincerely hope that those on the government side will reconsider this hastily thought-out motion that shows disrespect not just for the people of British Columbia but for this place and its traditions and its importance in our democracy.

Hon. P. Bell: I appreciate the opportunity to speak in favour of Motion 47. While I've listened to opposition members speak at length about the challenges they see with regards to this motion, I do think there is an expectation out there in the public that we make good use of our time here in this facility.

There is much history behind the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. It has functioned effectively for many, many decades. But it is time to think about the opportunity to update our practices and make sure that we are making the very best use of our time.

As opposition members know — and despite the fact that the member for Nanaimo perhaps suggested otherwise — much of our time and responsibilities actually fall outside this Legislature. Much of the work we do is truly reflective of dealing with constituents, whether it be in our own ridings or across the province, meeting with people, understanding what the challenges are that they face and figuring out how to best deliver services for British Columbians.

[1605]

For us to spend all of our time in this Legislature — and the members opposite, I think, clearly know this as well — is not necessarily the best use of our time. So to move from the principle of having two Houses to having a third House, I think, is very reasonable. It is the type of expectation that people would have. It is a responsible approach for us as a government, and it's something that I think all members of this House should be endorsing and moving forward on.

I don't want to take a lot of time today, but I do think it's important that people understand there are two views of this and that it is responsible for us to make sure we use our time wisely in this House.

A. Dix: Earlier on in the session — just a few days ago in fact — we had the exciting moment, which was exciting for lots of members of the Legislature, to invite two new members to join us. They weren't invited; they got elected to represent their constituents in this Legislature.

In the ceremony where they were nominated, the Clerk of the House spoke eloquently about the role of MLAs, their role in the development of our province and our communities. He said — and I think I have the number right — that 881 people had served in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia since 1871 when we started here. Those of us who sit here, the 85 of us who sit here at this moment, are amongst that group.

Surely, it's for all of us an extraordinary honour. It's also, I think, an extraordinary obligation. While very few people in history and very few of the four million people in the province sit in the Legislature — just 85 of us — this place doesn't belong to us. It's our responsibility to tend to it, to make sure that we nurture it, because the democratic institutions that it represents are critical for our economy, our life, our society.

Democracy itself is reflected in these institutions. How we treat these institutions, what we say about these institutions, surely is important. It's not just something that can be thrown off, hon. Speaker.

I listened intently to the contribution of the Minister of Jobs. I'm glad he got up and spoke and put forward his point of view, which is to suggest that this is simply a matter of expediency and efficiency. A session that started with a discussion amongst MLAs led by a Deputy Speaker of the House, the member for Richmond East, about how we might better function here, about how we might better deal with budget estimates, how we might deal with institutions, has ended with the government ramming through another non-reform — deciding unilaterally that it wanted to go on a particular course of action.

What is the reason? What is the rationale for this? The rationale for this is that in the last two weeks the government has introduced 16 bills. I've sat here since 2009, and it's been very different than between 2005 and 2009.

The Legislature has in historic terms, in this period of this parliament, sat very little. The government has introduced very little legislation. In 2010 we had a budget which was a narrow budget that took place between the Olympic Games. In 2011 we had a non-budget. I think we went through a period of 16 months where we sat for 28 days. Regardless of this, regardless of the fact that there was lots of opportunity to prepare legislation, the government was not able to do its job in time.

The session started last fall, and now we have 16 bills, including significant bills that matter to people in the province, tabled in the last two weeks. Their response is to say: "Oh well, we were wrong. We were unable to manage our affairs, but the price should be paid by the democratic debate."

Now there is enormous cynicism. I know it. We saw it recently in the House of Commons when the Speaker found the government in Ottawa in contempt of parliament, and then an election was called. The government said: "Well, no one cares about those institutions anymore. Really, it's quaint for people to think about the Legislative Assembly and the democratic institutions and the debate and holding governments accountable."
[ Page 11983 ]

[1610]

Really, it's like the Minister of Jobs says. It's just a matter between the executives and senior public servants. Really, we're just a rubber stamp, and really, the democratic process doesn't matter.

I suggest to you that it's our job. I mean, ministers are ministers. They're also MLAs. It's our job to ensure that doesn't take place and, if it's not taking place, to adjust our behaviour accordingly. But it is not a justification for the presidentialization of government in British Columbia. It's not a justification.

This is totally unjustified. The government and the public service that serves the government…. I don't blame the public service. This is a lack of political direction in the creation of legislation, and it has not done its job properly. We frequently have a situation where major pieces of legislation are tabled in this House and then debated either the next day or the day after or a week later. It's easy for the minister say: "Oh, people talk about legislation by exhaustion."

I'm not concerned about us. I've stood and delivered in the House at 4 a.m. in the morning. I'm not concerned about us. But what this does, the process of having a bill that's hidden from the public, and nobody…. They used "advice to cabinet" to keep information away from the public, about freedom of information.

Nobody sees that legislation. It's developed between senior public servants and political ministers. Sometimes even the government caucus isn't fully involved. Certainly, the public isn't involved. They drop the legislation, and then we're debating it right away. We have bills that affect laws in British Columbia. The bar association doesn't have time to comment on those bills before they're already passed in the Legislature.

When we see initiatives like this, the concern is not the Legislature. The concern is not MLAs. The concern is the link between the people and the democratic process. What we're seeing in this legislation is an attempt by a government, which was disorganized in the way they managed things, to take away from the Legislative Assembly its proper role to assess legislation and to take away from the public its opportunity to pass judgment and speak on that legislation before it's passed. That's what's at stake here.

We're going to, in this period in May, deal with the 12 pieces of legislation that the government has introduced in the last ten weeks, and others, and we're going to ram them through. We know that the consequences of that sometimes are bad even for the government. Who cannot recall the day in January when a government that had denied the official opposition a formal role in the Legislature decided to bring in legislation — Bills 27, 28 and 29, bills that were found to be illegal in the courts years later, after years of litigation?

The government had to actually pay with taxpayers' money for their insolent conduct in those matters, their conduct disrespectful of democracy. Would it not have been better if those bills hadn't been introduced on a Friday and passed on a Sunday night at 4 a.m., as Bill 29 was?

The voice that is being suppressed here is not the opposition's voice. We'll speak to this as best we can. It's the people's voice that's being suppressed. That, I think, is something we have to change.

We've had a period where the Legislature is sitting less and less. It is absolutely true what the Minister of Jobs says. MLAs do lots of work outside the Legislature, but we do work here too. This is at the core of what we do, this work in the Legislature. It matters. If we don't act like it matters, if we think we're just a rubber stamp, if we say it's okay for the government to do this, if we say 21 bills and 750 pages in less than two weeks is okay….

The minister talks about efficiency. At the core of every democracy that's a real democracy…. The difference between those democracies that say they're democracies but aren't democracies and those that are real democracies is the question of alternates. It's something that we need to remind ourselves of on the opposition side and that government members need to remind themselves of as well. In real democracies governments are elected and governments are defeated. Oppositions are elected, and oppositions go across and win as government.

[1615]

To act as if the government will always be government…. "It doesn't matter what the opposition says, it doesn't matter the rules of the Legislature, and it doesn't matter how we conduct our business here, because we're the government, and what we say counts. We've got a majority of votes, and that's all that matters. We won 46 percent of the vote in the last election. We're in year three of our mandate. That's all that matters."

Then at some point government members will be on the opposition side, and maybe they'll have a different view. But the right view, the view of respect for the Legislature, should be good whether you're on one side or another. It should matter on one side or another. It shouldn't be that a government mismanages its legislative agenda and is unable to produce legislation, even though they hardly produced any legislation for three years. They weren't able to get it done. They come in here, and they override the rules of the House.

It's true that in 1992 the members of this House came together and changed the rules. We created the second House, which is now the Douglas Fir Room, where we debate budget estimates. That is true. It was done by a motion supported by the Government House Leader of the day, by the Opposition House Leader of the day, who was David Mitchell, and by the Third Party leader of the day, who was Jack Weisgerber. Those three people came together.

They didn't do what this government does, which is mismanage its agenda and then come in here and ram
[ Page 11984 ]
through a motion that says: "Oh, it doesn't matter if we mismanaged our agenda." You know, 12 bills — 12 bills.

Interjection.

A. Dix: The Government House Leader is speaking. I invite him to participate in this debate. Again, I'm sure, when he closes debate he will be eloquent. But the fact of the matter is that the Legislature has sat less in this term in office than it has ever sat before. This is the fact of the matter.

The fact of the matter is that they mismanaged their agenda, and we should be dealing with bills. We assigned a fixed legislative session. That was decided, and it was a good initiative by the government. The intent of the fixed legislative session was to deal with the budget and some legislation in the spring and then deal with legislation in the fall. That's what they decided to do.

It was a good reform. Instead, really — except in years when we weren't able to get the budget passed in the spring-election years and so on — what the government has done is eliminated the fall part of that and reduced the overall time we're in the Legislature compared to any period. They took one reform that was good, and they mismanaged it in a way that it was bad.

To be fair, hon. Speaker — and we've seen this in the course of the government…. The government had its first period when it was 77 to 2, and they did what they thought they should do. They overrode the opposition, and they used closure even then, and they did all these other things. That was that time.

Then in 2005, to the credit of the former Premier, Mr. Campbell, they extended for a brief period of time question period in the House, which is a good reform by the government. But now we have them — in rules that ought to be matters of consensus in this House — overriding their own rules.

For me it's not, I suggest, reflective of what we should be doing here, because it excludes the public. The Government House Leader who, as I say…. I'm sure he cannot possibly think, cannot possibly argue that introducing 16 bills in two weeks and then driving them through the Legislature is a good thing, an example of respect for parliament. He can't believe that.

This is about expediency, and the cost of expediency, as the member well knows, is the democratic debate. The people who are being excluded, the people they're not interested in, the people whose views don't matter are the voters of the province. They introduce these bills. No one can comment on them. They don't give any time for that. It doesn't matter to them. We ram them through, and we move on. We're a rubber stamp in the Legislature for government action.

I think that is the wrong approach. The Government House Leader is advocating….

Interjection.

A. Dix: Well, I'll tell the Government House Leader that I'm prepared to come here and work in June. I'm prepared to come here and work in July. We're not worried about work. If he agrees not to use closure, we're prepared to come here and work. We're prepared to come here and work.

[1620]

Hon. Speaker, all of the shouting down on the Government House Leader's side….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members. The opposition leader has the floor.

A. Dix: Hon. Speaker, we're prepared to do that and obviously to come back in the fall as well. In some cases this legislation ought to be reviewed by the public and come back in the fall. We see this in some of this legislation. Governments and legislation. All governments, NDP and Liberal governments and other governments, make mistakes. Whatever the name of the party will be in the next election — even that government, if it exists, might make a mistake.

That's why legislative scrutiny is important. That's why it's important to ensure that people have a right, a right that they zealously guard, to have influence and approach in their democracy. It's up to us how we treat this place. It is up to us. This way, a way of changing the rules of the House unilaterally to seek the convenience of the government — because they don't want an extra week of question period, they don't want us to work in June, and they might not want to come back in the fall — is the wrong approach. Nobody looking at the facts of it, I think, would say it's the right approach.

Nobody would say it wouldn't have been better had the government managed to handle its legislative agenda better. No one can say that. But we're here now. Let's acknowledge that the government has introduced the bills now. I think it's reasonable for us to treat those bills in a serious manner, not as a rubber-stamp Legislature but a Legislature doing its work together to ensure that the legislation that is passed by the Legislature — but more importantly, that must be followed by citizens — is the best possible legislation, that the people have some voice in that legislation, that we promote changes working together that even improves the legislative process, not just to make it more efficient for the cabinet, but to make it better for the public.

I'll just say this finally, that 881 people, members of the Legislature, according to what the Clerk of the House said last week…. I think in these times it is often easy to be disrespectful of that, and sometimes we invite that. We invite that sometimes by not being respectful of one an-
[ Page 11985 ]
other in our roles. All of us need to reflect on that.

We also have to reflect the Legislative Assembly, its history and its centrality in our democracy. When governments, wherever they are, disrespect that, it is very difficult to make the case to people out there, the people who visit us, the school children and others who visit us…. If we don't respect it, why should they?

So let's do the right thing here. Let's withdraw this motion on the part of the government. Let's withdraw this motion. Let's have the Government House Leader on behalf of the government and the Opposition House Leader on behalf of the opposition sit down and talk about what a reasonable way to deal with the legislation is. What legislation is it, what legislation…?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

A. Dix: The Government House Leader….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Please continue.

A. Dix: Hon. Speaker, let's have the two sides sitting together. I think I've got them started. Let's have the two sides sit down together and look at the legislative agenda and say: "Okay. What bills does the government need now? Let's have a good debate on those. What bills could be put off to later?" Or alternatively, extend the session into June so we can deal with that legislation properly.

Let's allow the people of British Columbia to have a voice in legislation. Why is it appropriate to introduce complex legislation on a Monday and have it debated in the House on a Wednesday? Why is that appropriate? Why is it appropriate to treat the Legislature as a rubber stamp? It is not appropriate to do that, and it is not necessary. It is not necessary.

Our job here in this Legislature….

Interjection.

A. Dix: Well, hon. Speaker, the government is now of course saying that debate in this Legislature — that really, what the opposition should do is just vote yes on every government motion and not debate them at all. That's not the democratic process.

[1625]

Debating how this place works and how we deal with legislation, ensuring that the public has a voice in legislation, that things aren't rammed through — those things aren't important. That's the government's position, but they don't have to take that course. They can take another course. We can take a more reasonable course. We can sit down and work this through in the better interests of the people of British Columbia, and that's what this opposition is prepared to do.

M. Karagianis: I will say that after the really eloquent remarks of our leader, it is perhaps a bit daunting to follow after with debate. But despite the government's efforts to try and deny members of this side a fair and right opportunity to debate on this, I'm happy to stand here and take my place and debate on this motion. I think there are a number of major flaws in the thinking of the government around this. I would like to speak to a couple of those things now.

One of the things that has come to light in the past few days with the government's rash tabling of so many bills is that we have seen from the Privacy Commissioner a letter that has clearly outlined the lack of consultation that has occurred on a number of these bills. We know, through some of the legislation we have debated here in this House, that some of the legislation even introduced here in the last number of weeks is to make amends and amendments to previous legislation that this government put through, which was were flawed.

I would argue, as have other members of this House and my colleagues, that the cautionary note right now, which we are seeing from the Privacy Commissioner on this, in itself should give government pause to say that we have not adequately consulted on some very major pieces of legislation that are currently captured in this rush of bills.

I think that one of the failings of this, of course — as we've seen in other examples by the government's lack of ability to put together cohesive and non-chaotic legislation and present it here in the House — is that there have been either court challenges or other failings of this legislation. So it would seem to me that the cautionary note we've heard right now from the Privacy Commissioner should be something that the government would listen to.

Even if they are prepared to just sort of politicize the debate between both sides of the House here, between the opposition and themselves, I would think that the independent advice and caution that's being offered to the government by the Privacy Commissioner should be taken incredibly seriously by the government. I've seen no indication from them that they have in any way acknowledged that or that they are prepared in any way to make any kind of steps in the right direction there.

It would seem to me that it's a little bittersweet and slightly ironic that we have the government going out to a public consultation on what day of the month of February we might hold a family holiday. Extensive efforts are being made to consult on that. Yet when it comes to an independent authority — a legislative officer of the Legislature — saying that there has been lack of consultation on major pieces of legislation, I'm not sure how the government kind of balances that off.
[ Page 11986 ]

How can you be consulting with the public on something like a family day — which Monday will it be, the second or the third Monday of the month? You consider that something worthwhile taking consultation. Yet major pieces of legislation that you have now been alerted to by the Privacy Commissioner as being questionable — you wouldn't stop and take the time to consult on that.

I've heard no explanation. Even in the few speakers that the government has put up on this, I've heard, again, no response, no rationale, no explanation or anything that responds in any way to the letter they have received. It's been made very public.

I know we have canvassed in here numerous times in the course of this debate today the issue of a fall sitting. But again, I have not heard — and I am looking forward to hearing — some kind of rationale on the part of the government side.

[1630]

They've stood up and made various kinds of political stances on this and basically said: "You need to pass this legislation because we say so and because we're in a hurry and because we think that this legislation is not worth a deep and intensive examination or cross-examination."

But because I've heard no particular rationale from the other side of the House, I don't understand why they're not following their own legislative calendar with this. It would seem very clear to me that if the government feels such an overwhelming need to table such a vast number of pieces of legislation, so many bills, again, it speaks very strongly to their own legislative calendar that they implemented.

It was implemented for the very specific purpose of dealing with budgetary issues in the spring and legislative bills and laws of the country we passed in the fall. That was the explanation that we had on why the legislative calendar was necessary, and I think most British Columbians saw that there was some rationale and some justice in that — some predictability to say: "Yes, these are the things we can look forward, as British Columbians, to examining."

In the spring we would look at how our budgets and money were being spent. We'd take the time to examine that under estimates debate, and then we would look at legislation that would be rolled out on a fall agenda. So the fact that the government is choosing not to do that and that they still feel that this incredible number of bills that have come through already and are still yet to be debated would not be better served by going to the legislated fall session — I don't know.

As we know, the opposition members, as clearly articulated by my colleagues, have said we are quite willing to sit for a longer period of time here in June. The government has rejected that. They now have apparently rejected their own legislative calendar. And not once have I heard, from the few speakers that have been up on the government side, any kind of justification for that. In fact, the government has not spoken at all to their own legislative calendar.

I am not entirely sure why they've not chosen to respond to that. I mean, it is their calendar. It's their legislation that was put in place. Why have they not spoken to that?

I've not heard from their House Leader or anyone else why it's necessary for us to go through this exercise and try and ram all of these bills through in the next few days, and they never once have alluded to the fixed calendar. So what does that mean? They've just completely disregarded their own fixed calendar.

I'm surprised at the cavalier manner of this government, continually, day after day, in this place. It only seems to be getting worse. It seems to be deteriorating as we get closer to the election in 2013. I see a government that seems less capable of sticking to their own agendas, less capable of following their own mandate, self-declared mandates on things like fixed-calendar sittings.

You have to ask yourself: what of this legislation — other than the PST, which, of course, the government has had to work very hard to bring through in this session because the people of British Columbia expected that as an outcome of the HST referendum — is of such urgent need that it all had to be brought in, in the last few weeks of the sitting, not in the first few weeks of the sitting? I guess if it had been of an urgent nature, you would have thought it would have come up much earlier in the session, if it was urgently required to address failings within the province.

Some of it, of course, we know are amendments to try and band-aid together other bad decisions the government has made earlier on, either years ago or months ago. But in looking through all of these bills, many of them would have been well served to be brought in at the very beginning of the session or, I would argue, would be very well served to be debated in a fulsome fall session, as was intended when this calendar was set.

That is the perfect time and place for us to do that examination, for us to spend that time, both sides of the House, in consultation with stakeholders around the province about whether or not these are good laws, workable laws, and to seek opinion from the legal profession as to whether or not these will hold up in court.

[1635]

We've seen that several of the legislative endeavours of this government have not held up in court. We are actually putting together amendments even now, in this session, to make up for things that were just passed in the fall.

If the government is just so reckless and so unable to manage its own agenda…. Again, I'd like to hear the rationale for why we're not going to a fall sitting. I certainly, at this point, do not understand or see, when I read through comments that were made by the previous speakers, anything there that makes any rational explanation or makes any rational sense to me as to what it is we
[ Page 11987 ]
think we are accomplishing here.

I think the Leader of the Opposition outlined very clearly, very eloquently that this place is not ours to play with as if it's at the whim of the sitting government. I mean, this is an institution. Democracy is an institution of our society.

This place is where the people's business is done and seen to be done. When government behaves in a cavalier manner, we are denying the people their rights to see their business done in an orderly and forthright manner in this House.

The continual efforts by the government to try and turn this somehow into a debate about our ability to debate I also find very confusing. Why would the government want to deny us the ability to debate on any piece of legislation that they bring through?

We've seen historically and repeatedly from this government that they are fond of bringing in closure when they don't get their own way. They are fond of time allocations that deny not just us as members of the Legislature but their own members, as well as the public, due and just access to our democratic rights.

If you see the volume of what is before us, I would say…. In very particular, singling out the PST bill, which in itself is enormously complex, why would the government not revel in the opportunity to take the time to debate this in a fulsome way?

The PST. The Minister of Finance has made his views known about what a stupid tax he thinks it is. He would have all kinds of opportunities to debate this in a very fulsome way here in a fall sitting — not have to try and push this through with no debate and no defence by the government on the PST bill, try to cram it through here with only a few days left in the sitting. I believe that would be six days and some-odd hours left before the Legislature shuts down.

Boy, I would have thought that the government really would have wanted to have a go at this PST. It's an opportunity for them to stand up and, if nothing else, vilify the people of the province for turning down their beloved HST and forcing them to go back to the PST.

It's a big, complex bill. The Minister of Finance could have had a great go, telling everybody how stupid it is in all kinds of different ways. We could have had that debate. Now the government, though, seem to be treating the PST bill and trivializing it to the same degree that they are all these other pieces of legislation in front of us.

This concept of somehow dividing the Committee of Supply into three rooms. Other than the sort of physical challenge of making sure everybody can follow what is happening here in the House and ensuring that everybody, including both sides of the House, can participate fully in operating three Houses of the Legislature, I think is a minor part of this discussion.

Really, it goes much deeper than that. It goes to a culture that we have seen growing over the past decade with this government, a government that has become so self-destructive but so incredibly self-motivated that they do not appreciate any longer what their role is here in this House. They no longer appreciate the people's rights to see how the business of this House is done, to see how their government behaves, to see what their government's priorities are.

[1640]

I guess the government assumes, like many people, that not all voters in British Columbia are watching the Hansard. They are not all glued to the legislative channel watching the debates that go on here, and that's true. But I think it's false to say that all people in British Columbia don't care how their Legislature operates, that people are indifferent to how government treats their democratic rights.

I think that is anything but true. I think the HST referendum showed us that when people are offended enough by the way their government behaves, they will stand up and demand that the government change their course. For the government to assume in any way that even these last few days of this session, while all of this legislation is being pushed through rapidly, haphazardly, chaotically…. To assume that the people in British Columbia don't care about that, I think, is a huge mistake, because the people of British Columbia care very deeply about that.

I think that the government, again, just continues to demonstrate behaviour that British Columbians find irresponsible, undemocratic, unrepresentative of their values as British Columbians. This is yet one more example — as we deny a fixed legislative calendar that people came to rely on, as we deny the right for people to have right and reasonable consultation and access to this legislation, as we rebuff the advice that comes to us from independent officers, like the Privacy Commissioner.

I think it is just such a poor representation of the values of British Columbia that I think the government needs to really be much more cautious. It's not like they are in the best of standing with the people of British Columbia. I would say that just continuing this kind of reckless and undemocratic behaviour to steamroll over people's rights is continued folly.

So I will not be supporting this bill. I don't know if the government is listening in any way to our pleas, from the kind of heckling I hear over there. I suspect that they're not listening to any of the rationale that we are offering up to abandon this course of action.

It's too bad, Madam Speaker, because I think it's yet one more issue — that British Columbians will look at this government and say: "It's a government that has run out of steam, run out of time and certainly run out of representative power, for demonstrating that they can govern and that they stand up for the people of the province."

Hon. M. Polak: I've listened with interest as this debate has unfolded, and I have to say I find myself par-
[ Page 11988 ]
ticularly confused to hear on the one hand that there is a desire to have continued and thorough debate on matters, while at the same time that there is an unwillingness to do the work that would allow us to have that.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I have to say that I find the opposition speaking out of both sides of their mouth on this. I think we are willing to do the work, and that is the message that we want to try to convey here today.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will close my remarks.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the question is Motion 47.

[1645-1650]

Motion approved on the following division:

Hon. R. Coleman: I call Motion 46 standing in my name.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

MOTION 46 — CHANGES TO
LEGISLATIVE SITTING HOURS

Hon. R. Coleman:

[1. Notwithstanding the Sessional Order passed by the House on October 3, 2011, amending Standing Orders 2 (1) and 3:
The House will sit until 9:00 p.m. on the following dates:
Wednesday, May 16, 2012;
Monday, May 28, 2012; and,
Wednesday, May 30, 2012.
If at the hour of 9:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 16, 2012, Monday, May 28, 2012 and Wednesday, May 30, 2012 any business of the day is not concluded and no other hour has been agreed on for the next sitting, the Speaker shall leave the Chair:
On Monday, May 28, 2012, until 10 a.m. Tuesday; and,
On Wednesday, May 16, 2012, and Wednesday, May 30, 2012, until 10 a.m. on Thursday.]

Motion 46 deals with the extension of hours on three days in the next two weeks. It would have been four days if we'd had leave on Thursday.

As I go through this, I just want to remind the House of some history. I know people don't like to hear history around here, but I really feel, given the debates that I've listened to, that I should also talk about a little bit of history here.

On the previous debates, and I'm sure on this one, we'll be chastised actually for legislation by exhaustion.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, do you want to just wait one second.

Members, could you file out in an orderly manner? I'm having a little bit of trouble hearing.

Government House Leader continues.

Hon. R. Coleman: On this motion we're extending the hours in order for us to complete additional work. I want to remind the members that legislation in this House has had somewhat of a history, and that history obviously sometimes requires different times and, as the last motion discussed, having another House.

I want to, just so the House is not confused…. I thought we tried to be patient and let the members of the opposite House in the last motion have something to say. I will do some information with regards to the House on this one.

Now, I just give a snapshot — not to go back in total history. In 1993 the NDP government of the day put forward 80 pieces of legislation that would put the current list before the House to shame. Between March 18 and July 4, 1993, the NDP introduced close to 70 pieces of legislation. As of July 4 of that year 30 of these bills had yet to be debated, and there was less than a month left in the session.

Here's an overview of the 1993 legislative session, the second session of the 35th parliament: 80 bills were
[ Page 11989 ]
introduced; nine bills were introduced in the month of March; two bills were introduced in April; 18 bills were introduced in May; 37 bills were introduced in June; 14 bills were introduced in July. As we've been criticized here, on one day, June 17, six bills were introduced. We introduced six bills on May 7.

In the last month of the session 12 bills were introduced and debated and another 31 were discussed in committee stage. Seven bills of the 80 bills died on the order paper. And the legislation was not minor housekeeping. Rather, as the Province described it, many of the bills were cornerstones of the NDP agenda, as quoted to the Province on July 4, 1993.

[1655]

The reason I bring this is because as I sat and heard debates about legislation in this House — and now we're extending the hours to give more time — I've heard the members a number of times say that they would never have given 48 hours or 24 hours for debate on a piece of legislation. They believe that's just not enough time for someone to look at a bill and be able to get up and debate it. By the way, the opposition in those days sat to 11 or 12 o'clock at night in order to get that work done.

In 1993 Bill 71 was introduced with 48 hours notice to the House, with 66 sections. In 1994 Bill 44 was a bill that was introduced to the House and put up for debate within 48 hours — a bill that amended nine acts. In 1994 Bill 55 had 48 hours given for a bill to amend nine acts. In 1995 Bill 55 — 24 hours notice for a bill that amended 26 pieces of legislation. Bill 13, in 1996 — 48 hours for a five-part bill that amended 16 acts. In 1997, 48 hours for a bill that amended 15 acts. In 2000 Bill 8 — 24 hours for a bill that amended 28 pieces of legislation. And in 2001 Bill 6 — 48 hours for a bill that amended ten acts.

I'm not saying that that was right. But it's also incorrect for members to stand up and say that they would never do anything like this or to criticize the government with regards to the amount of time they get before they debate bills.

Introduced late in the session in 1992, the session ending July 3…. Bills 82 and 83 were introduced on June 24, with nine calendar days. Royal assent was on July 3. Bill 83 was introduced on June 24 — eight calendar days. Royal assent was given on July 3.

In 1994 the session ended on July 8, which goes back — you'll notice the ending of these sessions — to the argument I put forward earlier that members would sit into the summer in the 1990s.

Bill 55 was introduced on July 6. Royal assent was given on July 8 — two calendar days. In 1995 the session ended on July 13. Bill 56 was introduced on July 10 — three calendar days. Royal assent was given July 13. In 1997 the session ended on July 30. Bill 53 was introduced on July 29, and one calendar day was given before royal assent.

I have tried to operate this House in a way, in an honourable manner, with my member opposite. I have done something that no House Leader has done in the past. I've actually provided the Opposition House Leader well in advance the list of legislation that I expected to bring down and a short description of those acts. We've done that in a relationship of confidentiality that I think has benefited both sides of this House.

There are times when you have to decide you want to do something a bit different to improve this House. The opposition asked for two more weeks of debate in committee stage or on bills. You can do that by sitting for two more weeks, or you can actually open up the capacity of the chamber and have two more weeks debate simply by having another House. That's what the last debate was about.

In addition to that, because they asked for that and I was trying to accommodate that two more weeks of time, we also talked about having an extension of hours, which we've done once before as I've been House Leader.

Again we're offering this up — which we would have done Monday night. However, we could not get the motion approved, by leave, to actually discuss this motion on Thursday. Therefore, it had to be put on the order paper, and it's here today — to actually sit till nine o'clock at night on Wednesday, Monday and Wednesday. So Wednesday this week and the Monday and the Wednesday when we come back after the break week.

Now, I don't know what the opposition's position is. I suspect on this one, given some discussion I've had with the Opposition House Leader, that there's not a whole lot of opposition to this particular motion. But you never know.

I do think that when we decide to either attack or criticize or wonder about legislation, we should also remember where we came from and how many bills were done this way. This was only a snapshot of those times. It is important to understand that this is not being done for any other reason than to accommodate the opposition to give them the time they think they need to debate.

[1700]

I have told the Opposition House Leader over the time that there will be some bills that will probably stay on the order paper — just like the seven did back in 1993. Those bills will be identified to him when it is appropriate and we know. But the reality is that I do not think, as the Government House Leader, from my perspective, that we have done a bad job in communicating or working with the opposition.

I think another couple of hours is worthwhile on a couple of nights. Obviously, we've already passed the last motion. I won't spend any time dwelling on it. On this one, it's two hours on three nights till nine o'clock. I would hope the opposition would support that. I remember sitting here till 1 a.m. debating second reading, debating committee stage and debating estimates debates in this House on a regular basis in the first five
[ Page 11990 ]
years I was here.

I know it's a bit of an imposition on people's schedules while they're here, to sit till nine, because there will be events that members have been asked to attend tomorrow night and on the Monday and the Wednesday. But should the opposition wish those six hours, we are more than happy to accommodate them.

J. Horgan: I'm pleased to rise and participate in the debate on this motion. It's always interesting. I have a master's degree in history. I'm a student of history, so it's always nice to walk down memory lane with the Government House Leader. I'm reminded of a professor I had as an undergraduate who told me there are only two important dates to the student of history: 1066 and the date of the final exam.

I think that that speaks volumes to the notion of someone standing up, as the Government House Leader just did, and articulating events that happened 20 years ago. Those events will be looked at through the lens of the person speaking. That's the essence of telling history. That's the essence of our oral tradition.

We can go back and look at the documentation, as I'm sure the minister's staff has done, to provide him with chapter and verse on the bits and the pieces of the time. It won't have in that context the advent of the World Wide Web. It won't have in that the context of the beginning of electronic messaging, text messaging, BlackBerrys. Life goes on; life changes.

I'm not suggesting that this institution should not change. In fact, the Leader of the Official Opposition made reference to an initiative started by the Deputy Speaker to bring together private members from both sides of the House to talk about some of the changes we could make to this institution so that it would work more effectively — the member for New Westminster, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, the member for Port Coquitlam, the member for West Vancouver–Capilano and the former Attorney General, Barry Penner, when he was out of cabinet — an opportunity to talk informally about the changes we could make in this place.

I think that legislative reform is an important initiative. In my view, after those preliminary discussions I think that there is an opportunity for that change, but we should do it in an appropriate way, including all members of this House through a select standing committee, not by agreement between the two House Leaders.

I will, while I have the floor, hon. Speaker, just talk a bit about the relationship between myself and the Government House Leader. I think that I would agree with him that when we're speaking about events in this place, we have a fairly decent relationship.

But listeners and those that read this transcript later on need to also know that I'm the critic for his ministry responsibilities, of Energy, so it does mean that quite often in the morning we're talking cordially about how the afternoon will unfold, and in the afternoon we're beating each other over the head with verbal barbs about policy and so on. It's a challenge. It's part and parcel of the adversarial nature of this place.

Similarly, before the two of us took these positions as House Leaders, the member for Port Coquitlam and the member for Abbotsford West, I believe, the current Health Minister, both had a similar relationship with respect to Public Safety. You can get past that, I think, in a mature Legislature. I'd like to think, after the many changes that have taken place in British Columbia over the past — well, since 1871 — that we have come some distance.

I don't think that the debate today has been a waste of time. I see that — two, four, six — seven members of the official opposition, one independent and four government members participated in that debate. I believe that it was worthwhile. It was an opportunity for us on this side of the House to express our concerns about this moment in time — not in an historical context but in this moment of time — for that is all we as legislators can actually have an effect on. We can only speak to how we will act and comport ourselves in this place from now to the next election.

[1705]

As the official opposition leader said, it really isn't about us as individual members — government members, opposition members, independent members. It's about the people that sent us here. I don't want to belabour that point, but I think that it's important. I think all members would agree with the sentiment that what we do here is important, and if we diminish it by saying it's insignificant or it's a waste of time, it diminishes all of us.

With respect to the substance of the motion before us, I agree with the Government House Leader that additional hours on Monday and Wednesday will be useful in helping us get through the mountain of legislation before us, not in a historical context but in a contemporary context.

The Minister of Finance is saying: "Well, why wouldn't you just accept these extra hours and an extra place to make up the two weeks that we asked for?" For his benefit, the issue is not the amount of time we stand here. The Government House Leader and the current Education Minister, in his intervention this morning, talked about sitting into the wee hours of the night. That's not constructive, in my view.

What is constructive is linear time — days not hours. We can't adequately contact the people that are affected by the legislation before this House into the wee hours. I made reference to that this morning in my remarks on the previous motion. We need days and time for people to digest the information.

I will not defend the list that the Government House Leader read out about the past. That's not why I'm here. I am here to talk about today and tomorrow. That's what we should all be focused on. As I understand this motion,
[ Page 11991 ]
when it is passed, tomorrow we will sit until nine o'clock. We'll have some issues around the supper hour, and I'm fairly hopeful that we can deal with that through discussions and not amendments to motions.

Those additional hours that we will be getting through this motion will not go far enough, in my view, to put a dent in the volume of legislation that's before us — hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pages. We're going to do our level best, but we still have the estimates of the Ministry of Health to complete. We have the estimates of the Attorney General to complete, and Housing, Energy and, of course, the Premier. Those are not insignificant issues. Those are issues of public concern, and we need to canvass those thoroughly as well.

As we end this debate on this motion, I have a ray of hope in my heart that goodwill will prevail and that we'll be able to debate the legislation that was put forward by the Government House Leader in a way that does us proud as individuals and as an institution.

We have to remember, though, as the Leader of the Official Opposition said, that we don't own this place. None of us own this place. And 800-odd people, according to the Clerk, have been sworn in and signed the rolls since this place began, and we have a responsibility to leave it better than when we found it. I believe we can do that by civil discussion of the issues before us. I believe we can do that by taking the job seriously, not diminishing each other or the work that we do.

If someone wants to stand and make a comment on a piece of legislation, they have every right and, in fact, a responsibility to do that. Some have said that it's a waste of time. They don't get the point, hon. Speaker. And the point is that electors send us here. Four-point-some-odd million people send 85 of us here to do this work. It's important. It's valuable. It shouldn't be rushed.

I regret very much that the previous motion was passed, but I will not stand in the way of additional hours for the six days we have remaining. With that, I'll conclude my remarks.

B. Simpson: I wasn't going to speak to this motion, but the two House Leaders have indicated a couple of points that I do want to speak to.

First off, the Government House Leader has indicated that the machinations we're about were to try and get the two weeks that the opposition has indicated they need. I still don't think that we're going to get through these bills, even if we had added this time on earlier.

The Government House Leader also indicated that there are seven bills that are targeted for possibly carrying over. I think the sooner we know what those seven bills are the better, or however many those bills are, because we have substantive legislation in front of us, one of which is the PST bill, which came in late.

I still maintain that there is a governance issue here on the part of government that if you bring this much substantive legislation in this late, it forces us to the point of having to have the guillotine, and that does not serve the public well.

Both sides have indicated, though, that outside of the passion of these 11th-hour machinations, we need to have debate about how we do our business in this House better. That I fully support.

[1710]

I challenge both House Leaders to come forward with a proposition as to how we get together as legislators in order to talk about how we make this place work better so that we don't have all of this drama every session around the government's legislation and doing estimates. If that's the standing committee on legislative reform, then so be it.

I do think that we need to know, as legislators — and the public needs to know as well — what bills are not going to be taken to completion, which bills are the ones that we have to focus on and concentrate on. That will allow some people in the public and some of the bureaucracy to stand down and allow us to focus on the ones that we're supposed to get through here.

Again, I challenge the opposition to not politicize overly the second reading. Let us get to committee stage as quickly as possible. You've got 15 minutes on each clause to actually make a statement if you want to.

With that, I will support this, because we do need more time, but I think that we should sit until we're done.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the question is Motion 46.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I now move us to second reading on Bill 45, intituled the Income Tax Amendment Act, 2012. If that were to complete, we would then go back to second reading to be continued on the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2012, which is Bill 51. If that were to get done, we would start second reading on Bill 47, which is the Coastal Ferry Amendment Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 45 — INCOME TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that Bill 45, the Income Tax Amendment Act, be read a second time.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: Bill 45 contains the legislative amendments necessary to implement the B.C. seniors home-renovation tax credit and the B.C. first-time new-home
[ Page 11992 ]
buyers bonus.

The B.C. seniors home-renovation tax credit is a refundable income tax credit of up to $1,000 per year to assist with the cost of permanent home renovations that provide individuals aged 65 and over with increased independence, allowing them the flexibility to stay in their homes longer.

The maximum credit will be $1,000, annually calculated as 10 percent of eligible expenditures. The credit will be available to individuals who incur eligible expenses on or after April 1, 2012.

Eligible expenditures will include such renovations as installing grab bars, walk-in bathtubs, wheelchair ramps, motion-activated lighting and non-slip flooring in a bathroom. Certain renovations that allow a first-floor occupancy or secondary suite for a senior relative will also be eligible.

[D. Black in the chair.]

For example, individuals will be able to claim expenses that directly relate to adding a bedroom or bathroom to the main floor so a senior can access the rooms without having to use the stairs. The credit can be claimed by seniors, whether they own their home or rent, and by individuals who share a home with a senior relative. Individuals can claim the credit when they file their personal income tax at the end of each year, starting with the 2012 tax year.

The second tax measure contained in Bill 45 is the B.C. first-time new-home buyers bonus. The bonus is a temporary refundable income tax credit of up to $10,000 for families and individuals who are first-time buyers and who are purchasing a newly built home. The bonus will be calculated as 5 percent of the purchase price of the home, to a maximum bonus of $10,000, and will be phased out for individuals and families with incomes over $150,000.

It is available until the PST is reimplemented in respect of purchases of newly built homes where the HST applies and where a written agreement of purchase and sale is entered into on or after February 21, 2012.

To be eligible for the bonus, an individual must be a resident of British Columbia, they must be a first-time homebuyer, and they must intend to live in the home as their primary residence. Individuals must apply for the bonus through the B.C. government. An application form can be found on the B.C. Ministry of Finance website.

[1715]

Finally, I would like to add that the first-time new-home buyers bonus will assist the residential construction industry by encouraging purchases of newly constructed homes.

In conclusion, both these measures will make a significant contribution towards supporting the construction and renovation sectors, which are such important sectors in the economy of British Columbia.

With that, Madam Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 45.

B. Ralston: My comments on this bill will be relatively brief. This bill sets out to implement two features of the budget introduced earlier in the session which were not included in the Budget Measures Implementation Act.

The first one, the seniors home-renovation tax credit, uses the tax system, obviously, to allocate this credit. As I understand it, in order to receive the maximum credit of $1,000, the expenditure would have to be $10,000. It is proportionate to that. If you spend $5,000, you would earn a credit of $500.

I appreciate the minister giving some more direct examples of what this might be used for, although I'm not quite sure if it's an open-ended list. The definition in the proposed section is understandably a little bit more broad and written in language that's more particular to a statute.

It says:

"…part of a renovation or alteration of a qualifying principal residence of a senior or of the land on which the residence is situated, or that is part of the construction of the residence, that can reasonably be considered to be undertaken" — and these are the operative sections — "(i) to enable the senior to gain access to, or to be mobile or functional within, the residence or the land, or (ii) to reduce the risk of harm to the senior within the residence or the land, or in gaining access to the residence or land."

I think that's a bit broader. The minister's examples of grab bars, non-slip flooring and entrances to a first-floor suite are, I think, more comprehensible, perhaps, than that. A person has to be 65 years of age or older — notwithstanding that there are variable definitions of seniors — and a B.C. resident.

This will, I think, have a positive effect on the home renovation industry, and I know that one of the goals that the minister perhaps didn't allude directly to is to enable seniors to stay in their homes longer and delay moving to either long-term care or other forms of seniors' congregate care, which many seniors wish to avoid. Understandably, they wish to stay in their own home as long as possible. This will also make the residence safer for a person who decides to stay and live there and perhaps be assisted by a caregiver, either full-time or part-time.

So I think this legislation is a positive step. The estimate — and one appreciates that these estimates are just that — of the cost of this measure is $27 million per year. I'm not quite sure how that's calculated, but I would presume there's some calculation of the uptake. That seems reasonable, and I think the home renovation industry, broadly speaking, will be happy to incur that.

One would hope and expect that something that was done during the federal renovation program that would require the renovator to be registered for the appropri-
[ Page 11993 ]
ate GST registration and those sorts of things, in order to assist in discouraging the underground economy, might be helpful as a condition of receiving this grant. I'm not sure. That's something that perhaps we can deal with at the committee stage, should we get there.

[1720]

The other measure is the first-time homebuyers bonus — 5 percent of the purchase price, up to a maximum of $10,000. You would achieve the maximum 5 percent…. You would achieve $10,000 and 5 percent at a price of $200,000. For many properties in the Lower Mainland the purchaser will not achieve 5 percent. They'll be plateaued out at the $10,000 figure. But nonetheless, it is a measure that was required by the inventory, particularly of unsold condo apartments and new houses in many parts of British Columbia — simply by people waiting for the return of the PST in order to save the HST, notwithstanding the credit.

I know from media reports and from personal anecdotes that this has been well received by homebuilders as an incentive, particularly for first-time buyers of condo apartments in the Lower Mainland. There had been some decline in the market while people, perhaps understandably — or, in the views of others, somewhat misguidedly because prices may continue to go up — have waited, delayed purchases and caused additional carrying costs and financial strain upon builders who had completed properties and apartments and houses. In some cases they remain unsold.

Again, I think it's a measure that is required as part of the outwash of the HST debate. I know we witnessed yesterday another step forward in that in the sense of the minister tabling the detailed legislation to begin the return to the PST next April of 2013.

This, as I've said, was well received by potential buyers and the real estate industry generally. It does highlight some of the economic damage that the HST, rightly or wrongly — in the view of the minister, perhaps — has inflicted upon this important sector of our economy.

One thing you can say about the home-building industry is that it's not offshore. It's here. It employs local people. Wood construction in British Columbia for the most part employs local wood, and it's an integral part of a healthy British Columbia economy. To the extent that it prospers, the British Columbia economy is better. So I support this. On behalf of the official opposition, I support this measure.

Those are my comments at second reading. I'll obviously reserve some detailed questions about implementation for the next stage, should we get to it, given the very constricted calendar that we now face.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Finance will close debate.

Hon. K. Falcon: I thank the opposition critic for his thoughtful comments. I would agree with almost everything the critic had to say. In particular, the seniors home-renovation tax credit, while estimated to cost government about $27 million a year, will generate almost ten times that amount, almost $300 million worth of renovation activity in the province of British Columbia.

So from a strictly economic point of view, we think there's a good outcome, but from a more practical human result point of view, I think there is something very important that we're trying to achieve here. The member opposite touched on it quite correctly. That is to provide seniors or their family members the ability to make the kind of renovations that will allow seniors to remain in their home longer, which is where most seniors want to be. Nobody wants to…. In fact, it's often a very challenging emotional decision when families or seniors have to consider moving into some form of assisted-living or long-term-care facility. The longer they can stay at home, certainly, the better it is.

I remember my own father's case. He had a degenerative illness, so balance was a big issue. The installation of the grab bars in the bathrooms and putting non-slip mats on the floor in the bathroom and non-slip material on the bathtub bottom was really a very important way of avoiding some really awful falls that he was starting to take as the illness progressed.

[1725]

I thank the member for his comments, and I do hope that seniors and seniors organizations will help get the word out about this important renovation tax deduction. It is a refundable credit, which, for the purpose of viewers, means that you receive a cheque at the end of the year based on the expenditures that you've provided. So if you've spent $10,000 to upgrade a bathroom or to make the kind of installations that help your elderly parents stay in the home or they make those investments, they will receive $1,000 back from the government.

It really is a very practical incentive. So, too, is the first-time homebuyers bonus. In this case, we are providing, again, a refundable credit which means that — given the pricing of homes, as the opposition critic pointed out — the vast majority of people will qualify for the entire $10,000 credit.

We all know how difficult it is for young people, in particular, trying to save up a down payment for their first home purchase. Even if they manage to scrape together that down payment, often with the support of parents or extended family, they then buy a house and have absolutely no money to furnish the house — which is, again, a common theme.

The first-time homebuyers bonus will achieve a couple of objectives. One, it will help young families get into their first home, which we think is very important. Secondly, it will help the new-home construction sector. That's why it is tailored to apply only to the purchase of new homes. It doesn't just deal with unsold inventory, as
[ Page 11994 ]
the member talked about, but also, hopefully, helps spur or perhaps be that extra element that allows a developer to make a decision to go forward with the project and thus create a lot of economic activity and jobs.

I do think I want to touch on the HST. When the HST was brought in, it was controversial in some respects with respect to the housing sector, although it had a threshold where it didn't apply up to $525,000, or at least a full rebate of the amount of $26,250 was provided back to purchasers. Certainly, over $525,000, the full cost of the 7 percent portion was borne by purchasers, and clearly, that would have an impact, though what was rather interesting to me was that it wasn't reflected in the housing starts.

Maybe it was just the nature of the strong economy or the confidence in the economy in British Columbia that there still continued to be pretty significant housing starts. Now, of course, what we hear a lot about is concern that there's been too much appreciation in value, certainly in the condominium markets in Vancouver in particular. Toronto is another market that's often referred to.

My own view is that I think there will be some softening in housing prices, and that wouldn't be an altogether unhealthy thing. That is something we're starting to see across the country. What I don't see is any evidence to back up the speculation that we're seeing a speculative market in the housing sector. I do think it's important to get that on the record.

It was something I was asked about a lot when I was out of the country, visiting with the financial markets. They see 148 new construction condominium projects in Toronto alone, and they understandably wonder whether that kind of activity can continue and whether, in fact, it's being driven by some artificial speculative activity. I can't comment on the Ontario market with any knowledge, but I can comment on the local market with some. I think that the underpinnings and the foundational aspects in the local market are a little bit stronger.

Hopefully, the two amendments…. Obviously, in the course of committee stage we will discuss it in more detail and answer some more questions to ensure that the members opposite are comfortable with it, but I appreciate the positive feedback that the members related. Certainly, that's what I've heard in spades with respect to these particular elements of the budget speech and the budget that we introduced.

I look forward to moving on to committee stage with the support of the opposition and getting these passed in an expedited manner.

With that, I move that the bill be referred to a committee….

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: Oh, you're right. I apologize.

With that, Madam Speaker, I move the motion for second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: You would think that after 11 years I would have this stuff just down pat, but every once in a while I still get it wrong.

I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

[1730]

Bill 45, Income Tax Amendment Act, 2012, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Polak: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 51, the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2012.

BILL 51 — SOUTH COAST
BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

(continued)

R. Chouhan: I am very pleased to take my place to speak on this bill, Bill 51, South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2012.

Yesterday, with great interest, I watched the debate and listened to the Minister of Transportation, the opposition critic and all my colleagues talking about how it's going to impact the lives of ordinary British Columbians. When we heard the Minister of Transportation standing up and saying how it is going to be a wonderful step forward, helping people…. Then you look at actual information, and you find out that actually, it is not.

It may be a baby step in that right direction, but in fact what we are seeing here is, over the years, the mismanagement. The lack of governance of this whole TransLink system that we have seen has caused a lot more problems than anybody can sit here and describe in half an hour.

The governance changes pushed through by the then Minister of Transportation in 2007 and the current Minister of Finance continue to underserve the public by ensuring an undemocratic governance structure at TransLink and have led to a current funding crisis for 2013 and 2014. When we are talking about the changes of 2007, it seems like the elected board up to that point — those who were elected by the public, for the public; the mayors and the councillors who are daily connected with their public, their constituents, and their concerns and issues — knew exactly what the needs were of people who take public transit.

What happened then I think is very clear. Everybody knows. When they were going through a process, the
[ Page 11995 ]
then Minister of Transportation did not like that process. All he was trying to say was: "Look, I have a view. I want this to be changed. I want to do it my way, or the highway." That's the approach that was taken. The mayors and the councillors, the board, were trying to convince the minister that it's important that we have a true, real public consultation. The only way that could be done is if he keeps the board which was elected, not just imposed on the British Columbians.

But no, the minister won't listen to that. Obviously, what we have seen is the total failure of the whole system, the failure of the B.C. Liberals to live up to their commitments. Furthermore, the 2010 livable cities memorandum of understanding with the Mayors Council on Regional Transportation to work together in a cooperative and collaborative way provided a long-term strategy to create a sustainable transportation network in Metro Vancouver, of which sufficient and stable long-term funding for TransLink was recognized as a critical component.

However, the current Minister of Transportation refused the March 2012 Mayors Council on Regional Transportation request for an independent review of past and current public transportation governance models with a view to recommending future changes to legislation and, on April 10, instead offered to put the chair and vice-chair of the Mayors Council on the board of TransLink.

[1735]

There was a time in 2007 when the entire board was elected. Now, rather than going back to the same model which worked in the past, the Minister of Transportation is saying: "It's okay; don't worry about it. I'm going to give you two seats on the board. You don't have the majority. You listen to the rest of the people, and you just rubber-stamp it." That's not acceptable. That never worked and never will work.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The structural changes that were introduced in 2007 abolished the board of elected municipal politicians that had previously made regional transportation decisions at TransLink. It replaced the elected board with an appointed private sector board effective January 1, 2008, which is not accountable to the public, to a democratic process.

What we are looking at, Madam Speaker, when you see that kind of dramatic change in the governance…. Obviously, the people who were brought in — people who were appointed with no experience, with no accountability — were merely concerned about how to help each other.

What we saw as the first step they did, like increasing the remuneration of the daily per diems, was that the payment for wages for the chair and the board members skyrocketed. What we saw as the total cost of the entire board in 2007 was $126,000 — a total cost of $126,000. In 2008 that increased to $488,000. If that's not good enough, then in 2010 it went even further up to $624,000.

The chair's salary now alone is $125,000, which was the total amount of money spent on the board expenses up to 2007. No wonder we have that kind of deficit. It's no wonder that we don't have the accountability and that we are experiencing these problems at TransLink. When those changes were made….

Deputy Speaker: Member, can I bring you back to consideration of Bill 51.

R. Chouhan: I thought I was speaking on Bill 51, Madam Speaker. All right, thank you very much. Thanks for reminding me. I'll go back to my notes, Madam Speaker.

Now, under Bill 51, what we have also seen is that we are talking about fare evasion. In the last few years what we saw was that there were 63,000 tickets issued and only 7,500 people who paid their fines. Although this has been going on since 2008, the current Minister of Transportation claimed ignorance of that and is saying: "I didn't know anything about it." That's what shows a complete disconnect with the reality.

Under this bill what they are trying to do, in my view, is too little, too late. The system is broken so badly that it's not going to fix itself unless we go back to the model where we have complete, full accountability and people in place who know how to do it.

We found one example when the minister was saying that if people don't pay, they won't be able to renew their ICBC papers. However, what we have found out from Drew Snider of TransLink…. He says that there are no consequences if you decide not to pay the fine and that it's not tied in with vehicle insurance renewal either. What's going on here?

[1740]

What we need in place is a board which provides real solutions and real consultation with real elected people. I know that I have other colleagues who want to speak on that as well, so I'll take my place. Thank you very much for the opportunity for me to speak.

J. Brar: I am also very pleased to stand up in this House and speak to Bill 51, South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act. The reality is that so many bills have been introduced that sometimes we mix up all those bills here.

I represent the people of the city of Surrey, more specifically the people of Surrey-Fleetwood. As you know very well, Madam Speaker, the city of Surrey is the fastest-growing municipality in the country. We welcome about 1,000 people every month. That's the kind of challenge we face with the growing population.

I am mentioning that because that is actually directly
[ Page 11996 ]
related to the Bill 51 we're talking about here. The growth in public transit actually did not follow the growth in population in the city of Surrey and south of the Fraser. That remains the issue.

That's why public transit and accessibility, dependability and affordability remain the key issues in the city of Surrey and the south of Fraser area. That's why the people of Surrey would like to see a well-functioning TransLink that is able to meet the growing population needs of the people of the city of Surrey.

This bill proposes, basically, three key amendments. This bill addresses the long-overdue issue of fair evasion and fine collection, and that's a good thing.

Secondly, this bill offers a band-aid approach to the TransLink governance model. That's the second issue.

The third issue this bill talks about…. If passed, this bill requires performance audits of TransLink. That's the third issue under Bill 51.

This is not the first time we are talking about and debating TransLink in this House and the challenges faced by TransLink. It does have a history. In 2007 we were here debating Bill 43. The TransLink governance overhaul bill was introduced at that time and subsequently passed in this House. That was done by the previous Minister of Transportation. It was basically a change in the TransLink governance board at that time.

What happened at that time…. Before that bill became the law, the TransLink board was an elected board. Basically, it was represented by the mayors and the councillors of different cities. So effectively, it was representative of the public of the province of British Columbia.

But once that law was passed here, that replaced the elected board of TransLink with an unelected and undemocratic board of directors of TransLink. That's what the change was. I just want to put that into perspective.

I believe that was a mistake at that time, and that still remains the mistake today. Undermining the power and accountability of the elected board of TransLink I think was a huge mistake.

[1745]

Now we have an unelected board of directors of TransLink, and there's no public access to that board. That board meets behind doors. I think it's a huge mistake we are making by having an unelected board that meets behind doors and makes very important decisions that basically affect the lives of people of British Columbia when it comes to public transit.

That board, the unelected board, was given the responsibility at that time for the day-to-day administration and the long-term planning of TransLink. The previous minister at that time was very confident that with those changes the transportation issues, particularly under TransLink, would be taken care of and would be fixed for good.

That was the sales pitch made by the previous Minister of Transportation. The previous minister was very, very confident that the things would be fixed once the change in the board was made. But here we are. We are once again talking about the same thing. Under this Bill 51 we are talking about once again the governance of the TransLink board.

I came here as an immigrant, and one of the things which I think.… I am always proud when I say that in this country we believe in democracy. We believe in democracy, and that makes this country a model in the global community. We believe in human rights. We believe in transparency, and we value public input into our policy-making. Those are the Canadian values. But that bill which was passed in 2007 actually compromised those values big-time.

This bill, again, does not address those key issues. We still continue to have the unelected board of TransLink, and that remains the key challenge under this bill as well. There are minor amendments suggested in this bill — that is, to bring in the chair and the vice-chair. I don't think that is going to address the issue. The issue here is the public accountability. That's what is missing from the governance model of TransLink, and that's what I think we need to fix. Until we do that, I think it will be very, very hard, basically, to deal with the very pressing transportation issues faced by the TransLink board at this point in time.

The second issue this bill addresses is the long-overdue issue of fare evasion and fine collection. As I said earlier, that's a good thing. This bill establishes mechanisms to collect fines, ensuring that drivers with unpaid TransLink fines cannot renew their drivers' licences and registration, allowing TransLink to use collection agencies, to refuse TransLink service and to file certificates in court to gain assets of people who do not pay.

This is a huge issue, and this has been going on for a long time. Just for example, from January 1, 2011, to March 1, 2012, some 64,069 tickets were issued by the TransLink police. Only 10 percent of tickets actually were paid by the people. During that time basically about 7,500 people paid out of over 64,000 tickets that were issued by TransLink. That is actually a huge problem. That's why I say this is a good amendment and it's long overdue.

[1750]

I also know, Madam Speaker, that this is actually being done in response to an audit that took place in 2007. This problem was identified in a 2007 performance audit conducted by TransLink by PricewaterhouseCoopers, TransLink Fare Evasion Internal Audit, which commented:

"One reason for the low rate of ticket payment is the inability to link transit fines to other desired government functions. For instance, in regards to motor vehicle fines, vehicle licensing and registration is withheld until traffic violations are paid. As a result, the actual consequence to the individual is the short delay that they encounter while awaiting their violation ticket."

That was the recommendation made by the audit at
[ Page 11997 ]
that time. The previous Minister of Transportation spoke about this publicly about four years ago and said that this will be fixed. But here we are in 2012 talking about the same issue — basically, collection of fares. This bill basically establishes a mechanism where the people who have driving licences have to pay the fines because they have to go back to renew their licence, and that's where the accountability will be fixed. I think that's going to work, and that's a good thing.

What will not happen under this mechanism…. For people who do not have driving licences, this particular mechanism will not be able to make them accountable because they will not go back to ICBC to renew their licences. I don't know what the minister is going to propose for those people who do not have a driving licence and who do not need to go back to renew their licence. We will ask that at the committee stage when we ask questions about the different sections of the bill.

This also reminds me, Madam Speaker. When I spent a month on welfare, one of the issues I heard during that time, which I want to bring to the attention of the minister responsible today — and this was said to me by the bus drivers — is that what happens is that a number of people who are on welfare or people who have mental health problems get in and they don't pay tickets. The people on welfare can't afford to pay tickets, and people have mental health issues.

What I was told was that the people who pay the money to buy tickets get upset with drivers. What they told me was it was hard for them to deal with that situation. So I think we will ask that question to the minister — as to what the minister is going to do with people who have mental health problems. Because of mental health problems, they actually don't purchase the ticket and end up getting fines. How the minister is going to address those issues, we will ask when we go to committee stage. I hope the minister will respond to those questions when we go there.

The third issue this bill talks about, as I said earlier, is the performance audit of TransLink. That is the recommendation. The reality is this. The key here is the funding shortfall, which is about $30 million. That is the key challenge the TransLink board is facing at this point in time.

[1755]

What TransLink is looking for is long-term, sustainable funding. That remains the key issue. Whether we conduct the performance audits of TransLink or whether we make the other changes, this bill does not address that issue. Until we have that, in particular, the people in my city, the city of Surrey, south of the Fraser, will continue facing challenges when it comes to the public transit. The funding is not there to have additional buses or additional public transit to serve the people of the city of Surrey and south of the Fraser.

The other thing that we are talking about in this bill is very important to the people of the Lower Mainland. A lot of mayors and councillors are part of this. They are actually working closely. They work closely with the TransLink, because one of their key roles is to prepare long-term planning for the land development. I think we need to work very closely with the mayors when we talk about the transportation issues.

At this point in time the Mayors Council has some serious questions about this. I have been told that on April 12 they passed four resolutions, including that the governance changes proposed by the minister did not go far enough. That is what they said.

The first one is opposition to further use of property tax as a funding source for future transportation projects. That is the opposition they have.

The second one is that the Mayors Council says the governance changes proposed by the minister do not go far enough, and asked for the provincial Auditor General to do an in-depth review of efficiency of TransLink's governance board model. That is what they are asking. Basically, what they are asking about is that the unelected board is not going to work for the people of British Columbia, and it is not going to solve the key challenges that TransLink is facing at this point in time.

The third is that they argue that in light of the March 2012 TransLink Efficiency Review, another audit of TransLink is not required. But if there is one, it should be done by the provincial Auditor General. That is what they are saying.

The fourth thing they are saying is that they call for the two-year, $30 million in property tax funding for TransLink's latest expansion plan to be cancelled until alternative funding sources are determined. That is what they are saying.

As I said earlier, the $30 million funding shortfall remains the key challenge when we talk about the TransLink challenges, and this bill does not address that. This bill does not allow TransLink to deal with that funding shortfall. That remains the key.

I would like to conclude by saying that this bill basically responds to three key issues. The first one, as I said earlier, is that this is basically proposing some changes to the governance model of TransLink, adding a chair and vice-chair. The Mayors Council is saying that that is not going to do it. Basically, people of B.C. want an elected board of directors that will be accountable and answerable to the people of British Columbia.

The second one this bill actually does, which is a good thing, is that it is putting together a mechanism, basically, to cover fines against the tickets issued by the transit police to the people who do not pay their fares. That is a good thing.

[1800]

The third one is the $30 million deficit and the funding shortfall TransLink is facing, and this bill does not actually address that issue.

Having said that, Madam Speaker, thank you very
[ Page 11998 ]
much for the opportunity to speak to Bill 51. I hope I limited my comments to Bill 51.

G. Gentner: I rise to speak regarding Bill 51, the South Coast B.C. Transportation Authority Amendment Act. There are many aspects of this bill I'd like to address. But I'll try and keep my remarks primarily to fare evasion, because I've had a lot of experience with that one in a previous life. I'd like to talk about governance, and I've had a little experience with that, having been a city councillor and been involved back then with the GVRD and its relationship with…. Back then, of course, it was Transit. Then we turned into TransLink. We'll talk about that as well.

I want to say how pleased I am — and this doesn't come lightly — that we actually have a minister in the House who has an inquisitive ear and is taking it all in. I appreciate that. It's well noticed, although there will be a time later in the next 30 minutes that I'll lay out why I disagree with his proposal. But I have to say that it's much appreciated. We do get a lot of camaraderie, if you will, or heckling back and forth, but it is appreciated that the minister here is taking note and is taking diligent notes. I'm sure he'll take copious notes relative to what I'm about to say. Hopefully, it will change some of the things here. I get a thumbs-up already. I think we have a good working relationship in this House.

But I have to say here we go again. I've been in this House long enough to see that one of the big topics that doesn't seem to be resolved, or anything we've been able to come to conclusion on, is the ongoing revolving door relative to changes. Now we have another amendment, which we're calling the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act.

It harkens to the view that we are dealing with things that are short term. There's not a strategy here in this bill, Bill 51, that looks at the long-term approach, and it's unfortunate. I think it's because we're not consultative with all the bodies — whether it be the passenger, the driver, the SkyTrain employee, the system itself or working with the municipalities and Metro Vancouver. We haven't been able to get that part together. The puzzle pieces are everywhere.

Here we go again with a bill that clearly, to my estimation…. It's going in the right direction. It's an attempt. It's certainly better than we had a few years ago. I think it was quite a shemozzle, so to speak, with the last attempt by a former minister on how they were going to have this authoritarian view of the world and how things were going to take place from above and trickle down. In fact, there wasn't that type of input or solution-making driver, so to speak, regarding the long-term vision of public transportation in the Lower Mainland.

Now, the bill is quite extensive, and it does make some recommendations that I think are not alarming but are somewhat revealing. I'm hopeful that we will come to some conclusion.

We started off years ago. We had B.C. Hydro, which was the provincial entity that looked after it. Then it went into a Transit situation. I remember I was on the job working for Transit, and it was moved over to TransLink. I won't mention what government was involved back then, but we could see the authority was now changing from the province to, supposedly, that of the greater Vancouver region area municipalities.

But the baton really wasn't properly turned over. Many mayors grabbed at the opportunity. They thought this was the way to go, but unfortunately, they really grabbed a lemon, I think. Now we're trying to make lemonade with the fact that we don't fully, through this Bill 51, give the confidence to the Lower Mainland municipalities. We don't give them the right to true governance.

[1805]

We have a situation — clearly, it's in this bill if you read it through and through again — that from the capital side, we can constantly, as a province, foist the capital plan onto municipalities and the region, but at the same notion we leave them with the view of operating our mess and our maintenance of SkyTrain, etc. Now we're dealing with a real problem — that of fare evasion which, frankly, has been around for a long, long time. I'll lay out what I think those problems are.

When you look at the bill, one of the aspects is this whole notion of auditing. It seems to be the fashion of the day, and of course, it should be. We have seen the municipal auditor general that has come about, who has the ability to go in and look at things that perhaps we weren't giving the authority to our own provincial Auditor General to do, even though municipalities do have their own sort of sense of auditor general within each other. They are compelled to come forward through their own comptroller general to enunciate what they are doing year to year and a long vision as well.

Yet in this bill, particularly when it comes down to transit, we have had a problem with that type of long-term vision. In particular, I think the auditor general or the new audit that's set out by the ministry…. One of the biggest problems I see right away is: how accountable is the minister relative to an audit that's being conducted here?

The minister is not required to publish the auditor report or parts of it, and yet, strangely enough, the minister can demand payment from transit users. I think that's kind of a little ironic — don't you? You're going to do an audit of what's happening. You're going to demand from people to pay up, but you're not going to tell them what's in the audit. They're going to hold back that information.

Frankly, I think that's wrong. If you're going to ensure that people pay, and I think they should pay…. I think it's wrong to deny the transit users and the general public the right for full transparency in order to fulfil what a performance audit is. Let's find out what a performance
[ Page 11999 ]
is. That is going to be governed arbitrarily by the minister himself.

I don't know why the minister and, of course, the province, through Bill 51, are so afraid, if they are willing to look at the books, to open them up…. Unfortunately, he can arbitrarily do or reveal what he or she may think is in the best interest.

The minister refused the Mayors Council on Regional Transportation's request for an independent review of past and current public transportation governance models with a view to recommending future changes to legislation. Instead, on April 10 he offered to put the chair and vice-chair of the Mayors Council on the board of TransLink — part of this bill.

I realize that's a step perhaps in the right direction, but it doesn't go far enough. I realize that the minister may be going in the right direction. Again, there really isn't a comprehensive approach to transportation and, in particular, transit planning south of Fraser and, of course, all throughout the Lower Mainland.

When you're dealing with municipalities — and this is the partnership — the municipalities govern such things as land use and density. Those types of land uses dictate the needs of transportation and, in particular, transit. So why is it you don't have a full offering, a full house, a full consultative process with all the mayors and all the councils and work collaboratively? I find that's quite unfortunate.

Now regarding the audit, the performance audit is one. The minister, again, is not required to publish the audit, but he can choose to publish parts of it. That could be taken quite out of context. I think that's wrong. I don't think that is the intent of a full audit.

I don't know why the minister would want to put guidelines in so that he can somehow twist and turn in the wind, the decisions that are being made. He can find a way to try and justify it without going full out to all the representatives of the Lower Mainland and GVRD. He can basically produce things in a manner that he deems to be appropriate. That contradicts the good intention that I think maybe was supposed to be put forward in Bill 51.

[1810]

We're looking at the re-evaluation of the governance model. The governance model itself was a big mistake. A previous minister came forward and worked it out where there would be…. Of course, the board of the Vancouver Board of Trade would be involved in decision-making on who would sit, along with the chartered accountants.

Yet we seem to have a governing system where the reluctance is that…. We constantly look not only at the municipal government but at transit itself as a creature of the province. We're unwilling to give the confidence and allow the electoral system from within to dictate the needs of transit itself. I believe that's why we're in the governing mess we are. It's time to do a rethink and a complete new scrutiny of how we do things with TransLink. Unfortunately, we come short with this bill.

What's also lacking is a…. When you look at municipal government, you see things with a different lens. There's full public accountability. There is a public type of public hearing system. When you deal with TransLink today — when they have a new scheduling session or an information session — it's not that consultative. It's basically an information commercial. It's foisted on people. "This is how we're going to work." Unfortunately, Bill 51 doesn't open up the system.

We turned earlier, of course, to the arbitrariness of TransLink — how they can basically appoint themselves, with huge stipends. That is not being addressed in this bill. I think there is a real chance, an ability to again do a complete overhaul through Bill 51.

I think it's important that the mayors, as seen through this, will not only be there to rubber-stamp legislation, rubber-stamp the wishes of the province, but be able to have a full partnership that's shared by all. This still seems to be a bill that looks at "father knows best." It's time, again, to open up government and open up the abilities of transit.

I think, too, that mayors and council are basically the front line. They hear every day from people. They have public hearings, as I said earlier. I hate to put it this way. We sit in this bubble here, and we're disconnected in many ways. Therefore, the people who are on the ground are the mayors and councils. I think we should be listening with an attentive ear.

The minister seems to — at least, I'd have to say, compared to many of his colleagues — have taken a little bit of the wax out of his ears, and I appreciate it. But there's a lot of buildup still there, and we are hopeful to get through to this minister.

I looked at the….

Deputy Speaker: Member, if you could try to come back to the contents of the bill.

G. Gentner: Yes. I will take the wax out of my ears, hon. Speaker. I respect what you're saying, and certainly, back to the bill we will go.

I want to talk about the view of governance for district A. I think it's a good thing to be inclusive, but that's not good enough. It's not good enough, because all the tinkering in the world doesn't address the representation and the needed governance, which this bill attempted to do.

I'll give you an example. Without that representation on this board, In my community in Delta North, I'll give you an example of how the governance structure isn't working. We fought for a very long time — and I'm sure the Speaker would appreciate this — for a bus called the 301. This was going to finally connect suburbs, which is something that's been lacking for a long time.
[ Page 12000 ]

Connect Surrey with Richmond. What a novel idea that was — to run a bus system from Surrey, North Delta, over the Alex Fraser Bridge, hit the business sector in Richmond Centre and give all that opportunity to the merchants in Richmond Centre, all the business coming from Surrey looking for bargains and also connecting it to the airport.

[1815]

We fought hard for that, and we got it. The problem now is that through their ultimate wisdom, without consulting, which this bill ignores…. It's now taking a different route. It's going down a street called Nordel, which is not connected with the residents per se. They put up new bus shelters everywhere in the middle of the dark, and there are major security issues.

Here's an example. The bill looks at inclusion, with district A, bringing it in, but it does not have a direct relationship to the decision-making process. That is what is lacking when it comes down to scheduling buses, when it comes down to the planning of buses and the times. We don't have — and I say "we" — that direct relationship with the public and, of course, with municipalities. That's lacking in Bill 51.

Of course, we can go into the need for, I think, representation by population that would ensure there's better bus service everywhere from Port Mann all the way into Richmond.

Briefly, I want to talk about fare evasion, because I think this is very dear to many of us. We all believe, growing up in our lives — I know I have — that you have to pay your way as best you can.

Interjection.

G. Gentner: Exactly. And there are those who may not. Some may find some system of remediation either through Social Development for a yearly pass, or you can get it by other means. There are these subsidies that are available. However, they do fail. Some people do evade fare for — I hate to say it — sometimes legitimate reasons.

Michael Bloomberg, once mayor of the city of New York, said…. This is a 12 million population area. He said that his top dream was, "I would have mass transit be given away for nothing" — no fares. It would change an awful lot in bringing the automobile out of New York.

I think we have to keep that in mind when we talk about fares. We have to know what is relevant and what is fair and how we keep the balance in order to keep the ridership running and able to use the service. We look at B.C., and the minister knows this well. A good example is B.C. Ferries. You raise the fare so high that after a while ridership goes down, and you're at a critical point.

The same thing happens with transit services in the Lower Mainland. We talk about fare evasion here and the need for people to pay. I look at the need to seriously address more emphasis on prepaid fares — the type of system where there are incentives to have your bus pass with you — and to try and invite and encourage that type of system.

Again, I don't see how, when it comes down to its address of fare evasion, these incentives that have been placed in this bill, whereby people can do the prepaid fares…. In fact, I have a quote from the Chair, if I have a chance to get there, on what her position was years ago.

But I have to also talk about the delays that occur relative to those who don't pay. I have to explain to you my personal experiences with this one, particularly as a driver. The question in all this is: how are you going to enforce the toll evaders? I think that's an important question.

Does a bus driver hold up a full load of bus transit users and people going to work every day, people who have to get to work on time in order to pay their taxes so we can be here? They pay taxes, whereby property taxes are paid, so that TransLink can dip in and take that allocation of money. How do you do that? If you have a toll evader who refuses to pay, do you stop the bus? Do you call the TransLink police or your supervisor, and do you sit there and wait for ten, 20 or 30 minutes for that one toll evader, in order to wring out $2.50?

[1820]

These are real cases. This happens every day. Iif you go by the letter of the law, if you make sure that every toll evader — whether he or she is a dime short or their ticket is late and it's expired, but they still have to go to work…. What do you do? You have to show some leniency, and it has got to be somewhat fluid.

I'll tell you why. Drivers' lives are at stake. It's a whole different universe out there. There's alcohol. I can tell you an incident of a passenger on crack who didn't want to pay. He was questioned, and what did he do? Believe it or not, he took his skull and smashed it against the window of the bus, blood rushing out of his head, to make a point.

The point I'm trying to make is that this is an everyday situation out there. The toll evaders are out there. I can tell you another time. I have a personal experience. Late at night at the corner of Fraser and Broadway — I remember it well — three o'clock in the morning. I questioned somebody's fare, and within two minutes there was a combat-type of situation where four or five thugs got on the bus because I questioned their fare. I was a transit operator at the time. They took baseball bats, and they smashed that bus. They rocked the bus. Who was left in that carriage got out safely, but when they were done, within five or ten minutes the bus was pretty much a write-off.

That is the type of clientele that's out there. It's real. We have to have the balance and common sense to know that yes, we are going to chase the toll evaders, the fare evaders. But we've also got to understand the safety of the passengers and the safety of those who work there. I can tell you that when you do question it, you can wait for 30 minutes for a police officer to arrive, and it's too late.
[ Page 12001 ]

There are times you can question a fare, and it has happened to me. You question the fare, and you get spat on. You don't know what's out there — hep B, hep C. These are real-life situations. So my question is: how are you going to enforce this Bill 51? It's no easy solution. The violence is out there every day. The aggressive people are out there every day.

I can tell you a situation. I questioned a person about a fare being short. The police follow the bus. In a trench coat, I'm sure he had a gun on him. We went in and out, and as it turned out he didn't have a gun at all. He was on parole, and what he did have was a kitten. It was Christmas, and he was trying to take it to his daughter for a Christmas present. But those are real-life situations. I caused a problem questioning him on Christmas Day about his fare, and he was on parole that day — a one-day parolee going to do what he could to see his daughter.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We are living in a very different society today, and it is not what you think it is, hon. Speaker. We believed in the honour system, and we understood that the turnstiles wouldn't work. But you know what? I don't understand it.

We had a previous minister who said way back in November 2007 that there would be no more free rides for fare evaders in the Lower Mainland's SkyTrain system, because there would be gates and turnstiles installed at all the stations. That was way back in 2007. Here we are again, still talking about it.

I know there is going to be $30 million. It's going to be enacted to look at putting turnstiles in, like we see in most of the civilized urban areas of the world. I've been on New York transit. I've seen it. It's very effective. People are very polite. You pay, and you go through a turnstile — end of problem, end of security. You have somebody on the platform monitoring what's going on. Why has it taken that long? It's time to seriously understand.

I know we're not dealing with Metrotown station. I know we're looking at Main Street station. We don't have the money. But young people are worried. I hate to say, to go back, that there are thugs. There are punks — I know no better way to talk about it — who go out of their way to cause trouble. There was a promise way back in 2007 to put this forward. Why it hasn't come to fruition now is beyond me. We are really in a serious situation.

Noting the time, I move adjournment of debate and reserve my right to speak again.

[1825]

G. Gentner moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); P. Pimm in the chair.

The committee met at 2:37 p.m.

On Vote 29: ministry operations, $16,032,867,000 (continued).

G. Gentner: I just want to follow up from the member for Surrey-Fleetwood regarding some of the assets that are being sold off, in particular the property at Highway 10 and 152nd Street. The minister had mentioned that this was a significant investment that was no longer needed, but he also said, of course, that this was surplus property.

Can the minister explain what falls as, under his tutelage — or what he envisions to be known as — surplus property, and what is the justification of selling such?

Hon. M. de Jong: I was reminding myself and others that the location we're talking about is, I believe, kitty-corner to what was the famous Rodeo Drive-In. It stands no more but is commemorated in, I think, the name of the development across the street.

[1440]

The health authority purchased the property some time ago, contemplating the possibility that a new hospital site would be developed there, as we discussed before the break with the member's colleague. Ultimately, the decision was made to redevelop and expand the existing site at Surrey Memorial. Therefore, the purpose for which the site was obtained no longer exists. As a result, the health authority identified the No. 10–152nd Street location as surplus to their present needs.

G. Gentner: Can the minister describe to the House what the standard or the goal is of the acute care beds per 1,000 in any given authority — what the desired is and
[ Page 12002 ]
what we have south of Fraser currently?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm sorry; I don't understand the question.

G. Gentner: There is a goal or a set standard as to how many beds per 1,000, set by, of course, the federal government — what the dream is, what the vision is. It used to be that 2.5 beds per 1,000 was the desired goal years ago. I'm asking the ministry: what is its perception as to what is the doable bed ratio per 1,000, the acute care bed ratio, and what is it south of the Fraser currently?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm just endeavouring to obtain some further information. The member began his question by referencing a federal target.

[1445]

I'm not familiar with how the federal government…. Given how the constitutional responsibilities align themselves, I'm not certain why or where or when the federal government set a target. Perhaps the member could enlighten me.

G. Gentner: Yes, I'll provide the information to the minister. I don't have it at hand, but it's been well documented for some time, particularly from the government of Canada, what the goal was. It was at one time 3.5 beds per thousand. It was reduced to 2.5 acute care beds per thousand, based on desired ratios.

Don't get me wrong. I understand the need, the desire, is not to put everybody in hospitals. We want to get away from that. We have a new beginning.

I certainly want the minister to know that south of the Fraser we have an acute care bed shortage. Regardless of what the projections may be relative to the expansion at Surrey Memorial, in 20 years we're going to need acute care bed capacity.

The minister alluded to the fact that 20 years from now, if I have it correct, the ministry doesn't know, per se, where we're going to be. Perhaps we can purchase land again. I don't know. Maybe you can rectify that.

I want to know: are there any other assets within the ministry or authorities that are on the auction block to reach that $707 million shortfall?

Hon. M. de Jong: We've talked in this discussion about two properties that would fall into the category: the one that we were just dealing with and the Station Street property.

[1450]

There are other properties that would certainly fall into the category of being under consideration by the government. I'm not in a position to disclose here until final decisions have been made, and I'd be very cautious about doing so prematurely for fear of compromising the marketing opportunity that they represent.

G. Gentner: I guess it's out of the question the minister can give me a number of how many properties. Nevertheless, maybe we'll have to wait with bated breath to see what else is on the auction block.

I didn't quite get the answer I was looking for. Maybe I can ask it differently. What is the per-capita ratio of acute care beds within the Fraser Health Authority, and can the minister further break it down to what is available south of the Fraser within that authority?

Hon. M. de Jong: At my fingertips the only number I have for the member is a provincewide number, and I'm not certain he wishes that. I am advised that I can obtain a number for Fraser Health, which is what I think his question was — beds per 1,000 for Fraser Health. I should be able to break out the figure. I don't have it at my fingertips. I do have a provincial number for the member.

G. Gentner: I would appreciate that. Any analysis is a comparative analysis, and we'd like to know, in the fastest-growing areas of the province, what is happening — including the minister's own constituency, I'm sure. That's good information to know, and it's going to help the minister and future governments put together a strategic plan relative to the population and how many beds are available.

I just have one further question, if I may. Okay, we're selling a property there on Highway 10. The ministry has decided it's not in this vision of a future hospital, even though a dynamic location study was made in order to find that location. I also agree with the minister that the Rodeo Drive-In was a great place. I don't really see those burgers anymore. I know we're into better health, but nevertheless, that's heritage that's lost.

If the ministry was not going to use this land for a hospital, what kind of strategy was envisioned or planning done to see what other uses, on behalf of the ministry or authorities, that land could have been used for? Was it done or not?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, actually, the short answer to the member's question goes beyond the kind of analysis that he has queried. When the health authority made the determination that the site was surplus to its needs, that triggered involvement not just by the Ministry of Health but by the government as a whole to ascertain whether or not there was a use that might be health-related or education-related or might relate to some other of the many endeavours, justice-related, that might be required in the short to medium term.

[1455]

The fact that the property is, as the member has pointed out, available for purchase and is being marketed is confirmation of the fact that at the end of the day, the decision was made that it was surplus not just to health needs but to all needs and that the best means of realiz-
[ Page 12003 ]
ing on the value to the taxpayer would be to market it to the private sector.

D. Black: The minister flagged, when I came in the room, the tenor of the questions that I'd be asking, so I'll just get right to them.

The minister is well aware of the overcrowding at Royal Columbian Hospital, particularly how the overflow and the lack of acute care beds leads to overcrowding in the emergency ward because they can't move patients along.

I had inquiries from a number of people in the community earlier this year around the issue of Valleyview and what was happening at Valleyview Hospital. It had been a geriatric care facility for people suffering from dementia. It had therapeutic facilities there, including a garden where patients could sit and walk without getting lost on the facility. It was known as an innovator in dementia care there. Patients could be kept at Valleyview for a couple of weeks while they underwent an assessment and a program was put in place for care.

In November the facility was closed. It seems that that's eliminated about 75 geriatric psychiatric beds from the system. I wrote to the minister earlier this year. He hasn't had an opportunity to respond yet, but the questions that I asked at that time were around this issue.

I would like to know what's going to happen with the Valleyview building itself. It is a significant asset of the health system in British Columbia. But more importantly, right now I'd like to know whether those 75 geriatric care beds have been replaced in any other facility. I know that in Royal Columbian emergency, when a geriatric patient comes in through emergency suffering from dementia, the facility there is just not suitable to handle that kind of a vulnerable patient.

My question to the minister is: have those beds been replaced in any other facility, and what will be happening with the facility itself at Valleyview that's now closed?

Hon. M. de Jong: We're trying to get some up-to-date information. I know our time is valuable here. I wonder if I could undertake to come back to this. I know the member probably has some additional questions. By the time we're done with that, perhaps we can circle back and address Valleyview.

D. Black: Thanks to the minister for that. I'd be happy to get the information. I could just let you know that the letter I sent the minister was dated January 29 of this year. My information was that the building was closed at Valleyview in November.

[1500]

My other question is around Royal Columbian. Of course, the minister is well aware of the situation there, I think. It's a hospital that serves 1.6 million people in this region of Fraser Health. It has 61,000 emergency visits a year. Thirty-seven percent of B.C.'s trauma patients are treated at RCH. Actually, it's the site that receives more air ambulance trauma cases than anywhere else in the province.

It's a very busy hospital. It has one of the top cardiac intervention units in British Columbia. It's a high-risk centre for neonatal, high-risk pregnancies and premature babies. It has an excellent reputation and record. Since 1997 RCH has been at the top of the list in the country with the lowest neonatal infant mortality. It's a referral hospital for orthopedics. It's a UBC teaching hospital. In other words, it's a very important facility in British Columbia and in Fraser Health.

Royal Columbian has been waiting some time now — I think it's going on two years — for a response to the concept plan on the expansion that's being planned for Royal Columbian. I think the minister may be aware that this year is the 150th anniversary of Royal Columbian Hospital, the oldest hospital in the province.

There's an issue at Sherbrooke Centre, where the most vulnerable of patients are treated — people with mental illness and addiction — under a very stressful situation. It was an old nurses' residence there at Sherbrooke Centre. It just really isn't an appropriate facility. Amazing care takes place there — I've toured a number of times — but the lack of privacy…. That's one of the areas that's being proposed in the renewal plan for Royal Columbian.

I just want to ask the minister on this 150th anniversary of Royal Columbian Hospital — I think last month was the 150th anniversary — whether or not the minister….

Interjection.

D. Black: One hundred and fifty years.

I'm wondering if the minister has some good news.

Just as an aside to the minister, when it opened, it was the British sappers that were in New Westminster. It was a hospital for men only. A lot has changed since that time.

I'm wondering if the minister has some good news for Royal Columbian and the citizens of New Westminster in this 150th celebratory year.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, "It never hurts to ask" is a good adage, principle, to live by. I am not able to offer today the definitive statement that I'm sure the member and thousands of others are anxious to hear in this anniversary year for Royal Columbian. I will say this. The member was here earlier when I talked about the challenges with her colleague from West Vancouver. These are massive projects.

[1505]

I can say with respect to Royal Columbian that, again, despite some initial questions about whether or not the site represented the ideal way or the ideal place to redevelop, I think that argument, too, has been settled and, for a variety of reasons, people are satisfied that redevel-
[ Page 12004 ]
opment on the present site makes sense.

The member is quite correct about the service that Royal Columbian provides not just locally, not just regionally but even provincially, in terms of the folks that are evacuated to it and receive treatment from a very skilled group of professionals and teams that work within the hospital.

Next step: business case. For the same reasons I described earlier today, I and the government take the view that when the decision is made to expend the $5 million to $6 million that will be required to complete the detailed business case, the clock is ticking on moving ahead with the project because the business case has validity and accuracy for a finite period of time.

The business case, the finalization to procurement to construction to commissioning, is all part of the same timeline. That's realistically based on what I have seen of projects this size. That is, roughly speaking, a seven-year timeline. I don't think anyone disputes that. But in order to get there, you have to start.

In addition to finding a way to initiate that, move through it, complete the work in a timely way that is fiscally sustainable, keeping in mind…. One thing I didn't say earlier with respect to St. Paul's is that what I have discovered going back some years now is that the capital part of this represents one set of challenges, and ensuring that the operating dollars are there to provide the services within the facility is another.

In the case of Royal Columbian, I think, conceptually what is being contemplated is an expansion by almost 300 additional beds. One doesn't need to be a health economist to understand that that is going to, year over year, involve a massive expenditure increase on the operating side. So we have to make sure that that is provided for as well, and that is going into the planning process also. In many ways that represents one set of challenges.

The other challenge that I don't think we can lose sight of is that while people will undoubtedly welcome and celebrate an announcement to move to the business case and further along the path to when procurement takes place and construction begins, we have to make sure we've got a functioning hospital in the interim for those seven or eight years.

That work is also taking place to ensure that there is a proper flow of patients, that we are making proper use of the facility as it exists pending the work that is coming — the Sherbrooke Centre, for example, which I've also had a chance to tour, along with Royal Columbian itself — and that there's a plan in place to get us from here to there.

[1510]

I've always been impressed by the doggedness of the member's approach to this and advocacy on behalf of Royal Columbian and the work that needs to take place there. Similarly, I hope she will accept, albeit reluctantly, that I have never tried to exaggerate where we are. I remain hopeful that in the not too distant future I will be able, and government will be able, to say something more concrete about the next step.

D. Black: I very much appreciate the minister's comments.

Just for clarification, there's one thing I should have mentioned about the Sherbrooke Centre. I know the issue of seismic issues came up earlier. This hospital is on the banks of the Fraser River. It's an old building. It's very seismically — if that's the right word — suspect. I understand that some studies have been done on it that indicate that.

I just want to get clarification, because I think the minister said that we're moving from the concept plan now into the business-case plan. I think that's what I heard him say, and I hope that's what I heard him say. I just want to ask for clarification that in this 150th celebratory year, we may now get into the business case for the expansion of Royal Columbian and a new facility at Sherbrooke.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, it's a nice try, and why not? But actually, if I left any confusion on the matter, then I'm pleased that the member has alerted me to it. I am not in a position today to announce that we are commencing the business case but am hopeful that we will get there soon.

Whilst I accept that the member will view that as a disappointment, I will repeat what I said with respect to St. Paul's. I recognize that in this place there is no shortage of partisan and political debate, but objectively, I do take some pride in the fact that on countless projects over the last 11 years, when this government, the Ministry of Health and the health authorities have gone to the business case, that has begun a definite process to completion, as opposed to the business case as a stopgap measure to keep people quiet. That would not be a wise expenditure of $5 million or $6 million.

Whilst we are, regrettably, not at that day yet where I can say we are launching the work and expending the money on the business case, when that day occurs, I hope the member will be doubly pleased, realizing that it begins a process that each time has led to procurement, construction and completion of the work.

D. Black: I understand what the minister is saying, and I'll wait now to hear back on the issue of Valleyview and the 75 beds.

M. Mungall: I'm going to be asking questions about the planned expansion and the ongoing work around the expansion of the Kootenay Lake Hospital emergency room. I'll just provide a little bit of backstory for the minister and for, I'm sure, the many people who are watching at home.

Mr. Chair, before you think that nobody is watching at home, I actually have had constituents call me up or
[ Page 12005 ]
stop me on the street to tell me that they have watched Committee A while they were flipping channels and that they stopped for quite some time. So for the people who are at home and for the minister….

Interjection.

M. Mungall: Good thing that wasn't on the record — right, Minister?

It was announced on April 9, 2009, just five days before the writ was dropped in the last election, that this expansion project for Kootenay Lake Hospital emergency room would take place. What it would do is triple the size of the emergency room. The province kicked in $8.3 million, and it was originally slated to be completed by fall 2011.

On February 1, 2011, we actually got an update from the IHA. They said that the ER space and the CT scanner suite would be completed by summer 2011. That was some good news. But nothing opened over the summer, and the fall came rolling around.

[1515]

It wasn't until November 1 that the community found out that, actually, it's delayed until the end of January. The reason for this particular delay was that they had some finishing to do. Namely, they had to put in some desks. "Okay. Well, fine," says the community.

Then January rolls around, and no opening. We don't hear anything in the community until March 1, when in the local newspaper it says that there's going to be a three-month delay now, possibly opening in May. The reason for this delay was some problems with the HVAC system, and so on.

May rolls around, and on May 3 the IHA puts out a news release. It shows up in the Nelson Star the very next day, saying that now the ER redevelopment project isn't going to be completed until the fall. This time it's because of the flooring. Apparently, the flooring wasn't done correctly, so they have to rip up the entire flooring and reinstall new flooring.

Several questions around this, as I'm sure the minister can imagine. The first questions I have are: first off, who is responsible; who is managing this project; and if there are any subcontractors, who are they?

Hon. M. de Jong: Just before, for the member for New Westminster, I pledged to get some additional Valleyview information. While she is available, I wonder if I could relay to her and confirm that Valleyview was one of the final facilities providing care for mental illness to close at Riverview. It was a geriatric psychiatry program.

I am advised that those patients were transferred between mid-October and mid-November to other facilities, replacement facilities, in Fraser Health and Vancouver Coastal. They were divided between the two health authorities, depending on the community and the facility that was best suited to the individual care plan that was developed.

They did each, I am advised, have a fully developed, documented care plan that related to their social, psychological and family needs. In most cases there was a family support network, and they were involved with the development of the care plan and involved in the transfer.

As part of the overall Riverview strategy and development, Valleyview was certainly closed, and those patients were located and transferred to other facilities in Fraser Health and Vancouver Coastal.

Now, with the member's permission, I'll get some additional information and answer her question. I can tell her, while I'm on my feet, that there certainly was a problem with the floor. Based on the information I received and can draw on from memory, it was a significant flooring issue. I'll endeavour now to get some additional information.

[1520]

I'll try to do this in order. The member asked, firstly, who was managing the project. Interior Health is managing the project. Here are some additional details. The deficiencies relating to the flooring were identified during routine inspections in the ER and the diagnostic imaging corridor. As the member pointed out, despite some initial hope that the repairs and corrections could be made, it has been determined that the floor must be completely replaced.

The issues with the flooring were noticed in January. They made attempts to fix them, and I think that's what gave rise to the initial spring date. By April it became apparent that it was going to require a removal and replacement of the floor. The testing that took place revealed problems with moisture and the adhesive.

Without minimizing the concern and disappointment around completion of the project, I'm told that the disruption or impact to the hospital itself and the current ER is minimal. The new CT scanner suite is open, and patient care there won't be impacted because the repairs to the floor in that area and the DI corridor will take place during off hours. So they're able to continue accessing the new CT scanner.

I guess the last thing at this stage that I could provide is confirmation that the cost related to correcting the flooring situation is being covered by the general contractor, Yellowridge Construction Ltd.

M. Mungall: First, let me just apologize to the minister. All the information he offered was actually in the press releases that the IHA sent out. Thank you. It wasn't new information. I should have offered more of a backstory so that he knew what people in Nelson would know from reading the local newspaper.

I was looking not at the IHA, necessarily — obviously, they're a large entity — but specifically at who's responsible within that organization for managing this project and if there are any subcontractors to Yellowridge do-
[ Page 12006 ]
ing this work.

Ultimately, to have made such a major mistake in terms of the flooring…. People are asking questions in my community. I think they're fair questions, and this is one of the questions that they're asking. Is this something that was avoidable, and if so, who is responsible?

The minister mentioned that Yellowridge Construction is going to be footing the bill. What was in the IHA press release was that these increased costs associated with the delays would be covered within the contingency plan that they had for the budget of this project.

I'm wondering if the ministry has any information about what the exact cost figure is for these delays. Will they be 100 percent covered by the contingency plan? If they are not covered 100 percent by the contingency plan, what happens then? Who foots that overrun?

If there weren't these delays, I'm wondering where the money in that contingency plan would have gone.

[1525]

Hon. M. de Jong: In the order I think they were asked. The capital's division of Interior Health — and there is, obviously, an individual that heads that up — has primary responsibility for a project of this sort. The latest information I've just relayed to the member is that….

Well, first of all, the focus now is on getting the work done as quickly as possible so that the expanded facility is up and operational. The latest information that I related to the member is that this is being dealt with as a warranty issue. Without being able to speak authoritatively, I expect there will be a healthy dispute between the contractor and subcontractors as to who will bear the financial responsibility associated with the additional work that is required. I'm not in a position today to proffer an opinion on how that might be resolved.

M. Mungall: Just a final question then. If there was one delay, I don't think anybody in my community would ask this question, but there have been several delays. So we'd like to know from the minister: what happens if there is yet another delay? What is that going to mean for Kootenay Lake Hospital? What is that going to mean for the community, and what can we anticipate next? Will we get a ribbon-cutting ceremony this fall, or will there be another delay?

Hon. M. de Jong: As tempting as it is, I will resist two things: one is to speculate about an unfortunate intervening event like that; and secondly, to offer an absolute guarantee that that won't happen. I'm not well positioned to do either.

I will say this, and I say this guardedly because for some projects the approach I'm going to speak of makes sense, and in others it doesn't. This may have been a project….

Part of what has attracted the government to the public-private partnership model on large projects is the transfer of risk. In fact, that is one of the single biggest advantages. Because some of the issues we've canvassed here — about delay, about additional cost…. In that format, there is no question of who bears the brunt. They bear the brunt in a variety of ways, because when the facility isn't completed, there is a delay in the commencement of concession payments.

Now, that may be ancillary to what we're dealing with here, but it is one of the reasons that on many of the hospital projects around the province we have opted for the public-private partnership model — because it results in that transfer of risk. And when issues arise or delays occur — which, by the way, rather remarkably, they don't, because everyone is clear on who's paying the price — that's one of the advantages, we hope.

[1530]

The reports I have are that there is a plan in place for the repair to take place to the floor. I'm afraid I'm not able to offer an authoritative opinion on why that moisture issue arose and to arbitrarily here assign blame for that, except to assure the member that the focus on the part of Interior Health is to do everything humanly possible to get the repair work done quickly so that a facility that I know people in the area are anxious to see completed will be.

M. Farnworth: I'd like to pick up on a comment that the minister just made around the P3 model and capital projects. I want to deal with this, and then we'll probably move on to Riverview, some questions around there, and then on to more operational and staffing issues. I expect that around five or 5:15, we'll move to finish off with some primary public health issues — just to give the minister an idea of the direction that we're going.

On the North Island hospitals project, can the minister tell us the cost of a traditional procurement — i.e., design-build — for the NIHP versus the cost of the proposed public-private partnership, which is stated to be design-build-operate? At the time the government issued the materials — the materials that were issued by the government — the P3 was identified as the preferred method, which has been government policy for a while now. But there were no cost comparisons done. So can the minister tell us if there has been a cost comparison done between the traditional and the P3 model?

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, the analysis is done. It's performed by Partnerships B.C. They do what is called a risk-adjusted analysis. The easiest way I can explain that flows from a conversation I just had with the member's colleague from the Kootenays. The numbers there are as follows. The analysis suggests that the public-private partnership model upon which the projects are advancing would be $34.45 million less than the design-build comparator.
[ Page 12007 ]

[1535]

M. Farnworth: Would this include estimated legal and administration costs required for expressions of interest, requests for proposals, subsequent negotiations around contracts? Is that the entire cost, all-in, or is that just the physical capital cost of the actual construction?

Hon. M. de Jong: The answer is yes.

Just to anticipate what the member's interest in this may be, I think it's fair to say that in the early days of the public-private-partnership model and approach, we were developing the expertise to do this work. The procurement documents are obviously a little different, a little more expansive in terms of the operations component of it. That expertise certainly exists now in a fairly complete way. So the comparison is a fair one. It includes the kinds of procurement-related costs that the member has referred to.

M. Farnworth: That would relate in some way, I think, to the minister's earlier comments around the fact that in moving to a business case, the costs associated with doing that are significantly more than what they were a number of years ago, when we were talking about building a hospital for $5 million or a health care facility for $5 million. Now that can be spent on what you're doing in terms of the documentation and the business case around a new facility. I thank the minister for that explanation.

I'd like to move on to Riverview. The member for New Westminster has talked a little bit about the situation at Valleyview. The government made an announcement a number of years ago around the replacement beds. I think it was 820 replacement beds to be distributed throughout the province, and what we've seen at Riverview has been the moving out of patients from the Riverview site.

I wonder if the minister could give us a status update on those 820 replacement beds. Have those goals been met? Have they been put throughout the province? Then what I'd like to ask the minister is: what is the government's current thinking about the Riverview site? I've got a series of questions related to that.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, let me get the statistics out of the way early. As of December 31, 2011, 608 of the new beds have been completed, with another 235 due to be completed by January 2013. I'll take a moment to consider the member's second question about the site.

[1540]

What I probably cannot or should not do is purport to speak authoritatively about what the medium- to long-term plan for the site is. What I can tell the member is that by September of this year, any remaining patients — and there are precious few now — will have left the site.

Administrative responsibility for the Riverview lands will transfer from the Ministry of Health to the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services. There will be, I'm advised, a very small, lingering health presence on the site. For example, Forensic Psychiatric, who are across the street, will have a building, but the overall administration and management of the site will be assumed by the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services.

M. Farnworth: This is my concern. The downsizing of Riverview has taken place over the last 30 years, and governments of every political stripe have been involved, so I'm not suggesting for a minute that one government bears more responsibility for this than any other government. But I think that what we've seen over those years has been a recognition — by former Premier Campbell, for example…. He said he felt the pendulum had swung too far with regards to Riverview.

What the Riverview lands represent, I think, is a unique opportunity to have a site that is purpose-placed and purpose-ready to provide mental health services on a provincewide scale — not, I would say, in the institutional shape that they were, certainly, in the past, but to provide a modern and comprehensive set of services that can serve on a provincewide basis into the decades to come.

There has been discussion that it would still be a perfect site for a residential institution of some sort. If you talk to professionals in the area, whether they are at the psychiatric nurse level or whether they are psychiatrists, there is a role there for Riverview into the future.

What concerns me with, in essence, the elimination of the Health presence and moving this land to Labour and Citizens' Services is we are very quickly moving to the point where we have this extremely, I think, important piece of land that has been accepted by the community for over a century in terms of its purpose and that has widespread, considerable support in the community for a continuation of an important mental health service delivery model on the site — as well as other heritage aspects, natural aspects on the ground itself…. But the key issue is the provision of services and the provision of a wide range of services.

[1545]

The minister has stated that there will be a small health presence with forensic services across the way. That's correct. The Forensic Institute operates and has been there for a long, long time. Again, that's across the highway.

This particular piece of land has been the subject of some speculation by other ministers in the current government in terms of housing potential and development potential. The communities of the Tri-Cities — particularly Coquitlam, Port Moody and Port Coquitlam — have made it quite clear that their priority is for health or mental health services on that site.

So I would like to ask the minister to respond to those concerns. I'll also ask: within the ministry itself, has there been work done on a long-term vision for the Riverview
[ Page 12008 ]
lands that involve the continued provision of mental health services and the potential for it acting as a centre of excellence in the provision of those services?

Hon. M. de Jong: The short answer to the member is no, largely as a result of the direction that the ministry has been provided consistently for the last seven or eight or nine years, which is that the institutional health presence on the land is to come to an end. So there hasn't been some quiet contingency plan taking place elsewhere in the event that that were to change.

I will offer this other opinion as an observer, now a more active observer. It is certainly a unique place in B.C. with a unique history, and the proposals and discussion around what becomes of that unique site have attracted no shortage of participants and ideas. I think all of that is a good thing, the fact that people are engaged.

When I look at the ongoing debate around the use of the site, I am mindful of a similar albeit much smaller-scale debate that broke out at one point in my community when the new Abbotsford Hospital was completed — a discussion on what to do with the old site. What has emerged there is the realization that by utilizing a portion of the site to generate some fiscal wherewithal, some novel things can happen, some of them health related.

[1550]

I don't want the member to leave the debate with a perception that I have some secret agenda that I'm trying to advance. I don't. The plan is, as I've indicated, to complete the phasing out of the institutional mental health presence there. The discussion around the redevelopment and future use of those lands will continue and, I'm sure, generate passionate debate.

At some point the government will have to make a decision based on the input it has. I understand the member's observation that the pendulum in some of these matters….

With the benefit of historical hindsight, one can assess the breadth of that swing from a time when large institutional settings were thought to be the only way and the preferred way to address mental health issues to a day when, slowly, decisions were made that that could never be the case, and an institution of any sort was contrary to the interests of patients.

The member has also, I think, fairly and accurately highlighted comments that former Premier Campbell made about posing the question of whether there is perhaps a place somewhere, if not in the middle, along that continuum where we need to examine what the unique needs of people are and what our definition of an institution actually captures and includes.

So more questions than answers from the minister on this one. But that is how, administratively, the lands will line up over the next few months and after September.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for his explanation. I think one of the key issues on this — and it will be a fairly active and vigorous debate, certainly, at the community level — is the role into the future. The fact is that this is a particularly important and unique piece of land that's centrally located, that has a history and that can still play an important role.

One of the concerns that I have is, if that opportunity disappears in the form of the land disappearing, then the opportunity to play that role is gone. As the minister knows, finding suitable places to sometimes put facilities or to try something different can often meet with considerable resistance. That's one of the advantages of this site; that's not the case there. It already exists.

What the minister has told me, I think, causes me some concern. At the same time, I want him to know that there will be, I think, considerable public debate on that.

That leaves me with a final question on this particular issue: is this particular site, now that there is a timeline in terms of…. Once the transfer has taken place to Labour and Citizens' Services, will this be one of the pieces of land that the government referred to in the budget about potential sale to raise revenue funds for the province?

[1555]

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm grateful for the information, because I think the member will find it informative. There is — to my point earlier — on a portion of the lands an ongoing presence. I'm reminded that there is a Fraser Health mental health presence that is there and is contemplated to continue — it being a new 320-bed facility. So that, of course, is contemplated to continue.

Although administrative responsibility for the site will pass to Labour and Citizens' Services, B.C. Housing is directly involved in the discussion around future use and development of the site. It would be premature to speak about disposal of the lands until a final decision has been made about what the site is going to look like and what, if any, lands are available for sale or disposal. I think that work is still underway.

Certainly, engagement with the public and with local government is still ongoing, so I think it is premature for me to be talking about disposal of any of those lands.

M. Farnworth: At this point I'd like to move on to more service-oriented and operational-oriented questions and staffing issues in a number of areas, knowing that we are somewhat limited in time.

We've talked a little bit about the discussion around physicians' negotiations at the start of the Health estimates. I'd like to address some of the specific staffing concerns around health professionals in the province of British Columbia.

One of the ones that has been particularly, I think, challenging has been issues associated with the anaesthesiologists and ensuring that we have the appropriate number of anaesthesiologists in our health care facilities,
[ Page 12009 ]
hospitals, around the province. There have been some areas which have been facing some challenging shortages. There have been issues around recruitment and retention but also, I think, in terms of issues within the BCMA itself.

My question to the minister is: can he tell us where we are right now with anaesthesiologists and what steps the government is taking, if any, to try and resolve the disputes that the province is facing, and is this resulting in it being a challenge to recruit anaesthesiologists to British Columbia?

[1600]

Hon. M. de Jong: Just to account for the delay, what I'd like to do for the member and the committee is lay out the numbers that we rely upon in terms of anaesthetist supply and recruitment. I think one of the interesting dimensions to the ongoing debate is…. I'm not even sure there's agreement on the parameters of the argument.

There are allegations of issues around recruitment, but the member will hear me say: "Well, here's what happened on recruitment. Here is the number we have per capita versus other parts of the country." I'd like, if I could, to lay that out for the member and the committee, and then there are obviously issues that flow from that.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

I'm going to lay out for the member and the committee just some data that I rely upon. I think it's important that the committee have it for this discussion because it does influence the approach we take and that I take. If the member is in a position where he or other members want to disagree, this would be the place to do it.

Here's some of the relevant information. First of all, there are, of course, assertions that we are in dire need and lagging behind in terms of the supply of anaesthetists.

[1605]

The Canadian Institute of Health Information and the Canadian Medical Association say that per capita, B.C. has one of the best supplies of anaesthetists in the country. The number I've been given today is 472. I believe that is full-time and part-time.

Interjection.

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, it is full-time and part-time.

The number of fee-for-service anaesthesiologists has increased, I am advised, by 31 percent since 2001 and '02. To put that into some kind of perspective, the population during that period, I am advised, increased 11.1 percent, whilst the number of fee-for-service anaesthetists increased by 31 percent, and the general increase in physicians over that same period of time was 21 percent. So we've seen a higher number of anaesthetists coming into the province.

We hear the arguments on the recruiting front around the challenge associated with recruiting on the basis of competitive incomes. Recognizing that what we're dealing with are not employees but fee-for-service contractors, again, the number that I have been provided with and have relied upon in public discussions around this is as follows: an average full-time anaesthetist in 2010-2011 billed $342,255, about $342,000.

Of course, there are questions about how that compares to other jurisdictions, most notably Alberta. Again, I have never been particularly shy about acknowledging that based on the information I've seen, an average full-time anaesthetist in Alberta makes more than that. There is certainly an increase. But these are some raw numbers, as I say.

Part of the challenge in the discussion that has occurred…. On the one hand I hear the arguments being advanced about challenges in recruiting. Yet the data that I am provided with and, anecdotally, some of the stories that I learn and hear from across the province are: one, there are people interested and prepared to come to British Columbia; and two, perhaps more troubling, in situations, though not everywhere, where efforts are made to identify and recruit an anaesthesiologist, in some cases the reception has not been very warm. In fact, the experience of the individual has been that they are not welcome, and for whatever reason, they are not slotted into the rotation to receive the work that others would receive.

Having said all that, I have also made it clear that I accept the proposition that in some parts of British Columbia, generally more rural locations but not just rural locations, there are vacancies that are in dire need of being filled, and those challenges do exist.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the minister laying out the ministry's perspective and the numbers that the ministry is using.

[1610]

I guess the question that comes to mind, and my colleague from Kootenay West will address some of those particular issues, is that if, as the minister says, we are well served compared to the national average, the fact then remains that we are having some severe shortages in some key areas of the province, the Kootenays being one of them.

The minister has stated publicly that there's a list of 125 people ready to come and work here. Well, if that's the case, why is it, then, that we still have the problem in filling these particular locations? I mean, that is the obvious question. The other question that comes to mind, or that comes from the minister's comments, is around the issue of whether or not they're being made to feel welcome.

I think one of the other issues that has emerged is around credentials and qualifications. The nature of people who have agreed to come here has raised some
[ Page 12010 ]
concern, particularly when it involves a residency or a period of supervision of someone who has just qualified, for example, as an anaesthesiologist or who may not yet have passed the appropriate exams.

That's not saying they're not qualified in the sense of being a medical practitioner but that all the requirements the profession has have not yet been attained, and they're able to practice under supervision. In a number of cases that have been raised, the supervising physician is not an anaesthesiologist. I think that was an issue in the Kootenays.

What I'd like the minister to do is deal with the first part of the question around the numbers and the 125. Then my subsequent comments, I think, relate to his comments around the not being made to feel welcome. I'd like his response on that.

[1615]

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I'll begin with the part of the question that related to the seeming inconsistency between vacancies and 100-plus people seeking to come to British Columbia.

I think the short answer around that relates to the fact that when I say there is a list in excess of 100 anaesthetists that are interested in coming to British Columbia, it does not automatically follow that they are interested in coming to Castlegar or Terrace. They may have their preference for where they want to locate in British Columbia. That is certainly a phenomenon and a challenge we have across the board with respect to medical practitioners.

That's one thing. Another phenomenon that I think has arisen…. I am advised it has arisen. Based on what I've seen in other areas, in other specialty groups, I am inclined to assign some validity to this. The days of a specialist or a general practitioner arriving in a town and being prepared to provide service eight hours a day and then be on call…. Those days are gone. People have made lifestyle choices. I'm not going to criticize them for doing that.

It means that you're not just looking for two. You're probably looking for three, and there needs to be sufficient work available to support, on a fee-for-service basis, those three specialists.

Again, I have confirmed…. This part of what I have learned troubles me most of all. There will be a department, generally in a larger centre, where the argument can be made that there should be an additional full-time anaesthesiologist, yet there is a reluctance. There is a preference to rely on locums, because hiring an additional full-time anaesthesiologist or two….

There's a finite amount of work that can be done in the OR. It means the pie is getting divvied up amongst more people. That has income implications. That seems to be at the root of the concerns that have arisen on that front. It doesn't happen everywhere.

It's not applicable everywhere, but I have been troubled to learn that at a time when, on the one hand, arguments are being advanced about the need to recruit additional specialists and anaesthesiologists, on the other hand I am receiving reports of specific circumstances where there has been an institutional unwillingness to take on the people that have been recruited, because it has fiscal implications. There's a preference to utilize locums and alternatives. All of that is an issue.

[1620]

Where does that take us in terms of addressing the kinds of problems that do exist in some places around British Columbia? Well, here are two ideas. The member for Kootenay West will perhaps have more specific questions about a more specific circumstance. Here are two ideas that I am interested in enough to have signalled publicly and internally that I wish to pursue.

I am told that it was not that long ago in British Columbia that we made use of GP- or general practitioner–anaesthetists. They had additional training. I'm told that, for example, for the physicians that are recruited out of South Africa, training in this field is part of their general curriculum. They receive that as part of their general training.

Somewhere along the line the decision was made — I wish and probably should be able to tell the members of the committee who made this decision — to move exclusively to a specialist-driven delivery model. Well, that's great if, in the rural locations we're talking about, we had the specialists. But in some cases, I'm the first to concede, we don't. So what do we do? Well it strikes me that there is an opportunity to revisit the issue of GP-anaesthetists.

The members have heard me speak publicly about another potential approach to this which relies on a discipline that exists, certainly in the United States, around nurse-anaesthetists. In British Columbia part of my interest in this relates to the fact that whilst I am pleased about the progress we're making in graduating nurse practitioners, I still believe we are underutilizing the talent that they represent.

That's a longer-term project, to be sure, in terms of developing the training and the scope-of-practice requirements that would allow for those additional clinicians to provide service in this area. I think we're obligated to look at those options as long as we have a situation where certain parts of the province are underserviced on the part of the specialists.

As I say, notwithstanding the numbers that indicate we are, generally speaking, served per capita as well as anywhere in the country and better than most places, as long as there are still places where we are having trouble recruiting specialized anaesthesiologists, then we'd best turn our mind to how we address that. I've mentioned two approaches that I believe are worthy of exploration.

M. Farnworth: I have one question, and then my two colleagues have some specific questions on specific loca-
[ Page 12011 ]
tions in regard to anaesthesiologists.

The thing that becomes clear in this dispute around anaesthesiologists is that there's one set of facts and statistics on this side and another set of facts and statistics on that side.

One that immediately comes to mind is on the issue the minister raised of the average salary. The question that comes to mind is: what kind of workweek is that based on — a 70-hour workweek, a 40-hour workweek, an 80-hour workweek?

Those are some pretty key facts that need to be in place. It also raises, I think, some issues around what I talked about earlier on the health accord — that is, looking at a national approach in terms of compensation for some of the particular specialties that are out there. My concern is in trying to look at how this can be resolved so that communities are not inconvenienced or finding themselves at the centre of a dispute.

[1625]

Has the minister given any thought to having somebody independent look at both the ministry's statistics and the anaesthesiologists' statistics to get a sense of, okay, here's the true picture, as it were — not saying that either side is right or wrong but rather finding a way that there is an agreement on exactly the state of play when it comes to the number of hours of work, service levels and issues like that — and then to find a way to be able to move on?

Hon. M. de Jong: The first thing I'd like to do is make it clear that I accept unreservedly the proposition that there are anaesthetists out there who are working very long hours, that the work at times is fraught with pressure, that they are making themselves available on call. The problem — and public disputes occur — is that the rhetoric tends to take over and masks the importance of the role this group of professionals plays.

I know there are sometimes comments made about the role of an anaesthetist. The bottom line, as I understand it as a layperson, is that the surgical team relies entirely…. They are a fundamentally important part of that surgical team, and without someone performing that task and being trained to do it, the rest of the operation — pardon the pun — doesn't happen. That is the first thing I'd like to say.

[1630]

How to resolve the differing positions around some of the fundamental data. I think members will accept that an organization like the Canadian Institute for Health Information, CIHI, represents a reasonably credible third party that provides analysis across the country using the same methodology in each jurisdiction, so that's not a bad starting point.

I think that part of the dilemma here, and the member referred to it earlier in our discussion on this point, relates to the fact — and it is, I'm sure, a frustration — that the anaesthetists have not secured the kind of engagement they would be looking for from their colleagues within the BCMA. I mean, that's kind of a polite way of saying it. If you talk to an anaesthetist, they might portray it in a slightly cruder language.

I get that it's frustrating, and perhaps the difficulty lies in the fact, as the member has heard me say before, that in a relationship that exists between the government via the ministry and physicians via the BCMA, any one of the 30 or 40 or 50 specialist groups will make a compelling argument for why they are different and why the government should negotiate separately with them to take account of those unique circumstances.

But to do so with one group…. I'm not certain what the argument would be to the other 49 about why a similar approach shouldn't be taken, and that would prove untenable. That would prove very, very challenging.

The member in his earlier comments signalled, and I think I've heard him say this before, that there is an element to this that relates to the internal dynamic within the BCMA. I'm not sure how to overcome that. I don't have a magical answer.

The rates, for example. The BCMA plays a key and central role in the determination of rates within the envelope of money that is negotiated from time to time. It's part of master agreements. There is a healthy — dare I say vicious? — competition within the family of medicine for who has access to those additional resources.

Are the ministry and the government hesitant to impose itself into the middle of that vicious debate? Yeah, probably we are, because there's not a lot in that for us. But there are some thoughts on where I see some of the systemic challenges.

S. Hammell: There is an amazing difference between the position that has been presented here and the position that the anaesthesiologists make. I mean, I'm actually quite surprised to hear and delighted to know that 125 people are ready to come here but also distressed at the notion that people are not being made to feel welcome and that at the root of it there's some reluctance to divvy up the pie between more people. I assume that must mean the anaesthesiologists are in control of the divvying up of the pie.

Here's the one example that I have that I need you to help clarify, then, for me. At St. Paul's Hospital I heard very clearly an anaesthesiologist describe yesterday, meaning a past time when there were anaesthesiologists…. There was a group that was serving the community. There was a great program. Everyone was excited.

[1635]

He said unequivocally that they cannot recruit anaesthesiologists to St. Paul's Hospital. That is surprising to me, given the comments that you've just made.

I find this gulf so wide between what you as the minister are saying and what the anaesthesiologists have said on two occasions where I've had the privilege of being
[ Page 12012 ]
at a meeting where they were discussing this. I do think there's a need to go into some kind of conflict resolution here.

Certainly, it seems to me that either there is a shortage or there isn't, and that either the doctor from St. Paul's Hospital was not correct or the ministry is not correct. Or there is some variation on that theme. If you could clarify it for me, I would appreciate it.

[1640]

Hon. M. de Jong: The first thing I'd like to say is that as I have been responding to the questions and providing the information that the member is understandably troubled by, I do want to emphasize this. Again, in any disagreement of this sort, frequently what one says is not necessarily what someone else who is directly involved hears.

I don't want to suggest that any of the examples or descriptions that I have provided are applicable everywhere around the province. One, there are places where we have shortages. Two, where I have described some of the frustrations that I have felt around stories of recruiting gone bad, they do not exist everywhere. But they have taken place, and they have existed.

When one is confronted by assertions that no one wants to come to British Columbia, one is inclined to say: "Well, that is not so." There are people that want to come here. Some have come here and met with a very frosty reception. Others have experienced something difficult.

The fact that there are people on a list who have indicated their desire to come here…. Sometimes they're pretty selective about where they want to come and in what circumstances, which explains why we still have some places that are underserved.

The information that the member has provided about St. Paul's…. What we were trying to retrieve is information from Health Match B.C., which actually lists the vacancies. I'll tell the member candidly that as she was relating that to the committee, senior staff were saying: "That's the first I've heard of that, about a shortage at St. Paul's."

Here's a feature to this that we haven't talked about, which the member's question has prompted me to think about. Like many of our professions in British Columbia, the average age of anaesthetists is getting up there. It is fair, I think, to speak about the looming challenge associated with making sure we've got enough people in place and to accept the fact that the specialist at 30 is probably prepared to endure a work schedule that is different from the specialist at age 50 or 60.

Those are all submissions that I have received from doctors and from anaesthetists, which I accept. That means the importance we have attached to training twice as many doctors and ensuring that there are residencies available for anaesthetists is a very real one. That, too, is a part of this mix in terms of developing our training plan.

It begins by now training twice as many doctors as we did a decade ago and also ensuring that they have access to the specialized residency programs that are necessary, and ensuring that we have competitive remuneration in place so that we're not losing everyone that we train.

As I say, at a certain point on that front we want to be competitive. I'm not sure, though, that we can promise or pledge that we are going to be the highest-paying jurisdiction. That is not the case in other areas of the public sector, nor is it going to be in the case of all specialists on the medical side.

[The bells were rung.]

Those are all features of the equation, and I imagine we'll pick this up momentarily.

The Chair: The committee will take a short recess for a vote in the main chamber.

The committee recessed from 4:44 p.m. to 4:57 p.m.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

S. Hammell: I'd just like to spend a little bit more time on this because I think the gulf between the ministry and the anaesthesiologists has sort of demonstrated how wide it is in terms of the court action or the injunction that was required to stop the job action or the action of withdrawing services.

So can the minister just explain how we got there? Then, has he got a plan to de-escalate and have some kind of resolution come around this conflict other than either training up nurse practitioners, which would take time, or finding GP-anaesthesiologists — to reinstate that?

While he's doing that, could he just give me an idea of where B.C. sits in the wage range? Again, from the anaesthesiologists I've heard that we're at the bottom. I understand there are always two sides to a discussion, so I'm just curious where the ministry sees that — where we sit in terms of that wage range.

Hon. M. de Jong: The court action that the member has alluded to demonstrates the extent to which the relationship is challenged at the moment. The first thing I would say about that to the member is that the application that was brought before the courts was brought by the health authorities — not the ministry, not the government — and was a response to a threat that had been issued.

[1700]

I understand that in trying to advance an argument, folks will want to bring a sense of urgency to that. In the case of health care and health care provided by physicians who, I think it's fair to say, occupy a unique position within our society…. I think they occupy a unique
[ Page 12013 ]
position in terms of the importance of the work they do and the fact that it is the product of specialized training. The people who can deliver it are very, very talented, have studied hard and worked hard and are, I would suggest, valued for it.

Any assessment I have ever seen places nurses and doctors at or near the top of the list of professionals that the public admires and has confidence in. Regrettably, I chose a profession that is placed somewhere near the other end of the ladder and then made very much a lateral transfer into this — but as an hon. member, who I would not identify, points out, certainly still well ahead of the media.

It is such an important, unique profession. So the rules around the manner in which disputes between physicians and the state, in a scenario where we have publicly funded health care, have been carefully crafted and evolved over time. That is not just recognized legislatively but recognized by the College of Physicians and Surgeons in their capacity as a regulator on behalf of preserving the public interest and public protection. Physicians themselves understand there is a unique duty owed to patients.

When the health authorities were confronted by a situation in which it appeared that services were going to be withdrawn in a way that was not consistent with what they viewed as the professional obligations as defined by the college and pursuant to a way that was consistent with the requirements of the existing physician master agreement with the BCMA, they chose to take pre-emptive action to secure a ruling from the court, which they ultimately did.

The courts exist as an instrument by which we as a civilized society seek to bring order to disputes that exist, and I don't think that's a bad thing. It is fair to say, however, that by the time parties are obliged to resort to the courts, it is usually a sign that the relationship has badly come off the rails. That was dealt with, and rulings were issued by the courts. It ultimately, I think, became unnecessary for round 2 of that application to be heard.

Today I am advised that there is a measure of engagement taking place between the anaesthetists association and within the BCMA. I think that is as it should be. What are the prospects for that succeeding? I'm not sure. I'm hopeful. I also try to be realistic, given what we have discussed about the nature of the relationship.

[1705]

In those circumstances I don't want to suggest to the member that the government is on the verge of imposing itself or involving itself in those discussions. We are not. What we are actively pursuing are these other strategies designed to alleviate the real shortages that exist in places like Trail, Cranbrook, Penticton, Richmond, Nanaimo and Prince George. There are shortages in those centres.

At a certain point we are obliged, I think, to make certain decisions. If we can't attract an anaesthetist — who, I am told, will as a full-time anaesthetist make, on average, $340,000 with very, very little, if any, overhead — to Trail, then I think we have an obligation to look at some other delivery models.

That's what we're doing. The member correctly refers to the GP-anaesthetists or the nurse practitioner–anaesthetists. Those are longer-term solutions, but unless we begin, we will find ourselves, perhaps, confronted by another crisis situation and no closer to a larger systemic solution.

I think the member had a question relating to a comparator on wages. If she'll indulge me for moment, I'll see if we have that information.

What I can tell the member, from the data we do have from CIHI, is that we rank sixth and we are slightly below the national average.

K. Conroy: In relation to the Kootenays and the lack of services there, just to update the minister. He referred to Castlegar Hospital, but that hospital was closed down shortly after….

Interjection.

K. Conroy: The first time, you referred to Castlegar Hospital — just to correct you on that.

So it is actually Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital, which is based in Trail. It's a regional hospital that services the entire West Kootenays.

There has been a severe shortage since last fall. This isn't a shortage that's just happened in the last few months. In fact, we lost an anaesthesiologist last fall, and we've lost the head anaesthesiologist, Kallie Honeywood. She's leaving in June because she couldn't take the…. She's a young anaesthesiologist. She's not an older anaesthesiologist.

She's a young woman who couldn't take the 72-hour workweek. She couldn't take the 24-hour shifts that she had to do. "In all good conscience," she said, "I can't be taking care of a patient, doing anaesthesia on a patient in serious surgery and haven't slept for 24 hours." So she's leaving — not because of pay. She would be more than willing to take less pay and work 40 or 50 hours a week. She says it's a toxic environment.

It's the same situation in other hospitals in rural B.C. It is not just an issue in St. Paul's or in downtown Vancouver. It's an issue in rural B.C. For us at the Trail regional hospital, we don't expect every single service there, but we expect the basics. People want to know they can depend on an anaesthesiologist for emergency births, for just those emergency surgeries.

[1710]

They shouldn't have to drive all the way or be air-evacked to Kelowna to get that kind of surgery, so that's a real concern. In June we're going to be down to three anaesthesiologists, when we should have a minimum of five.
[ Page 12014 ]

I understand that the idea of nurse-anaesthesiologists or GP-anaesthesiologists is a great concept. They happen in the States. That's not happening in B.C. I know there are no regulations in place right now, or it's my understanding there are no regulations in place that can ensure that this could happen. They probably should have come in last fall, when we had the initial issue. We knew last fall there were concerns about anaesthesiologists in this province.

In fact, if the work stoppage had gone through…. In Trail we're already at that level. They couldn't have done any less. There couldn't have been any less of a work stoppage. That's what they're working at 24-7, every day of the week, and have been for quite a number of months now. So we need the help now.

I know the anaesthesiologists that work at the Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital were really frustrated with the minister's comments about 125 anaesthesiologists that are waiting to come into B.C., because they're actively trying to search for anaesthesiologists, and it doesn't seem to be working.

It's a real concern. It's an issue in our region. They say that they're going to try to fill in with locums over the summer because surgeries are cut back, but there are still emergency surgeries.

People in the region are worried. What's going to happen? It's a situation…. Kallie is gone as of June. We will no longer have her, so we will only have three full-time anaesthesiologists.

Hon. M. de Jong: With respect to Kootenay Regional, here is the information that I have. First of all, I can confirm that at the moment we are aware of a vacancy for a full-time anaesthesiologist and a locum. The good news is that there has been a retention of…. A new anaesthetist has agreed to start work in Trail in August. Admittedly, that is in August.

But here's some additional, interesting information. Over the past year Health Match, I'm advised, has referred seven anaesthesiologists to Trail for placement. None of them have taken up the position there.

[1715]

Now, what I can't tell the member authoritatively is whether that is because they have chosen not to accept the position or because they gleaned from their colleagues that there was a hesitancy to take them on. I don't want to insinuate anything. I simply want to say that seven were identified and referred to Trail.

Interjection.

Hon. M. de Jong: Sorry? The member is indicating that three or four attended and then chose not to take it up full-time. I'm actually interested. The member clearly knows what the individual circumstances were, and I'm interested to hear that.

We, over the years, have endeavoured to create some incentive for physicians and specialists to go to rural communities. There is a recruitment contingency fund, a recruitment incentive fund of up to $20,000 to physicians recruited to fill vacancies that are part of the physician supply plan, which would include this. There are, similarly, plans that relate to the ERs and to training. We try to provide additional resources to make it attractive for people to locate.

What that tells me, though — where we are identifying seven, four of whom come and decide not to stay — is that at the end of the day, we are still…. The member makes the point that it's not about money; it's about workload. I understand that today people don't want to be on call 24 hours. That may not have been an issue 20 or 30 years ago, but today people, when they're done, want to go home. They want to be with their family, and they don't want to be on call, which means you have to have a full complement of professionals.

I think that, in the member's comment, I heard her mildly criticize the government and me by saying that if we were intent on moving in the direction of nurse-anaesthesiologists, the time to have done that was last year, in terms of creating the regulations. I don't want to be cheeky or tricky.

I think what I hear the member saying is that philosophically, that is a shift she is in favour of, but then the government should get on with it. I would appreciate her removing any ambiguity about that as critic. If she is in favour of the government moving in that direction, we should know it.

I will say this. It is not a short-term solution, because it is not just about putting the regulations in place. There's a discussion that needs to take place around scope of practice, about the training modules. I think that initially, you would probably rely on the training that is available elsewhere as you developed the training modules for within British Columbia. There is a cost factor associated with that. All in, it's probably four to five years.

What you could do, and what we are examining, is developing the regulatory framework that would allow you to bring people in from elsewhere who are trained to do the work. In terms of beginning to produce nurse practitioners or nurse-anaesthesiologists in B.C., there's a whole lot of work that goes into that. I thought I heard the member come close to articulating that that was an acceptable strategy but that the government should then get on with it and do it sooner rather than later.

[1720]

K. Conroy: It's my understanding the Health critic hasn't been consulted on that. [Laughter.]

What I was referring to was the fact that we can't even bring in already qualified nurse-anaesthesiologists from a place like the States because the regulations aren't in place. If the minister is musing that that's something
[ Page 12015 ]
that should happen, the regulations aren't even there to do it, so we still sit with the situation that we have in Kootenay Boundary.

Some of the people who were referred weren't, in fact, fully qualified — that's my understanding — so they still would have had to be supervised by the anaesthesiologists. So they would still have had to work, even though there would have been some support for them. That was my understanding from the anaesthesiologists, which is a frustration.

I think I'm going to leave it there. We'll have further discussions with the minister on this issue, because it certainly hasn't gone away.

M. Farnworth: We're going to continue on issues around health professions and staffing and a number of issues associated with a number of key areas in terms of the operations of health care. But at this particular point in time two of my colleagues would like to ask a couple of questions around some renal issues. If the minister needs additional staff or can deal with things right now, that would be great.

With that, I turn it over to Chilliwack-Hope.

G. O'Mahony: This past winter treacherous conditions for the No. 1 Highway prompted alerts that people should stay off the highway. In particular, in my riding of Chilliwack-Hope in one instance there were at least three days where those roads were exceptionally dangerous.

I was shocked to hear that members of my community and surrounding areas still had to make the journey to Abbotsford to receive life-dependent dialysis. I've received numerous letters from a group called We Want a Dialysis Unit in Chilliwack. The group formed as a result of the weather conditions and having to face the fear of car accidents to receive the service. My question to the Minister of Health is: will he commit to exploring options for local dialysis in Chilliwack?

Number 2, what I wanted to mention was that Abbotsford currently has two places that people could receive dialysis, one at the Abbotsford Hospital and one at an Abbotsford clinic. I've heard reports — and I just was wondering if the minister could confirm — that there is now a midnight run being offered because of the demand for dialysis. In other words, dialysis is being offered through night shift.

Again, my question is…. If there is a need to expand services for dialysis, I'm asking that dialysis be offered in Chilliwack.

[1725]

Hon. M. de Jong: It's my first opportunity to welcome the hon. member to the debate. I know she has participated elsewhere in other forums, but congratulations, and welcome to the Health estimates.

Here's the data that I have. I recall when the issue arose. I am told that at present there are 13 patients receiving dialysis from the Abbotsford community dialysis unit who hail from Chilliwack.

The threshold for when a dialysis centre will be created actually isn't set by the ministry. The B.C. Provincial Renal Agency, in cooperation with the health authorities, coordinates the service. They do so in 12 hospitals and 25 community dialysis units across B.C.

Not to put too fine a point on it, there is something of a threshold test that will determine a permanent facility of the sort that now exists in Abbotsford at the Abbotsford Regional Hospital cancer treatment centre. It is, I hope the minister will agree, a remarkable, modern, state-of-the-art facility. I hope the people who are receiving their dialysis there would agree with that and echo those sentiments.

I also want to assure the member that, as a 40-year resident of the area who at one point lived in Abbotsford and worked in Chilliwack, I know the stretch of road well. It is true that about every four or five years there will be a two- or three-day period when whiteout conditions will reign and Highway 1 will become all but impassable. There have been some terrible, terrible accidents on that highway.

I would suggest this, recognizing that at the end of the day, I will be strongly influenced by recommendations that flow from the B.C. Provincial Renal Agency. If they determine that we have hit a threshold where establishing a permanent dialysis presence in Chilliwack is necessary, that will be strongly influential, I can assure the member. They have not provided that advice thus far.

[1730]

What I will say is that in other parts of the province far more remote than Chilliwack or Abbotsford, technology has been employed to allow individuals the option of independent dialysis, dialysis at home.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

I don't know which, if any, of the 13 patients that are presently being serviced for whom that represents a viable or realistic option. It is something that I am told would be examined. The last thing I would say, not as a way of making any kind of excuse….

The member may have information that contradicts this. In those rare circumstances, every four or five years for two or three days…. I mean, there are some days that if you live in Chilliwack on the Sumas Prairie, you ain't getting to the Abbotsford hospital. You ain't getting anywhere, and no one is getting to you because of the snowdrifts. I know that firsthand.

I would like to think that in those exceptional circumstances where it might still be possible to get into Chilliwack for a single day and for the single procedure…. It is possible to go to the Chilliwack hospital and have your dialysis needs attended to on a one-off basis.
[ Page 12016 ]

I understand that for anyone whose life has been affected to the point where they have to appear daily or every second day, the closer the better. If it can be done at home, so much the better. But if it can't, the closer the better.

I will be guided by the advice we receive from the Provincial Renal Agency on whether or not we have arrived at a point where the finite resources available to us should be devoted to the establishment of a permanent dialysis presence in Chilliwack.

G. O'Mahony: I just wanted to clear up some of those numbers. When you take into account the areas surrounding Chilliwack, the number of people receiving dialysis from Abbotsford is actually quite a lot higher — closer to 30. I also wanted to make a point that there are a number of people who have kidney disease and are not aware, and it is forward-thinking to consider if there is an expansion necessary to put a dialysis clinic in Chilliwack.

Also, as the minister is aware, there are occasions when people require dialysis for temporary periods because of illness or reaction to medications.

Once again, I want to ask…. It sounds like I'm having an affirmation from the minister. I just wanted to clarify. If indeed there is a need for expansion of services, as I mentioned, with the midnight run that I've been told about occurring at the freestanding clinic in Abbotsford, considering that Abbotsford has two possibilities for dialysis — one at the hospital and one at a clinic — I'm requesting that the expansion be moved to Chilliwack.

We have closer to around 30 dialysis patients from surrounding areas who need to make that journey along the highway. The highway has been treacherous for a number of years running, not on rare occasions.

Hon. M. de Jong: I should share with the member the numbers I do have. I am advised that at present there are 24 patients receiving dialysis at Abbotsford Regional Hospital — 18 of them from Chilliwack, five from Hope and one from Agassiz. Those are the numbers I've been provided thus far.

[1735]

I will restate that I will be strongly guided by the advice we receive from the Provincial Renal Agency. I might say this as well, gratuitously, and the member can accept it for what it's worth. In addition to the number of people requiring the service as being determinative, I think at this stage there is perhaps another argument that the member may wish to advance that I find more persuasive than the very, very infrequent weather event. That is the limited transportation links that exist between the two communities. That's not a once-every-five-years thing. That is a permanent challenge right now.

Insofar as I would not deign to manufacture the member's argument for her, it's my way of saying — as a resident of the area who knows it well — that I am not as concerned about the fact that we get a blizzard there once every five years. I am, however, concerned that when we move to regionalized service and regionalized service centres, we have to contemplate and consider whether or not people from within the region can actually get there.

Unlike Metro Vancouver, for which there is a range of intercommunity transit options, those options do not exist — at this point, at least — between Chilliwack and Abbotsford. That is something that I think we need to be mindful of when we consider where services are located. I am appreciative of the member's advocacy on behalf of the people who rely on this life-saving service.

C. Trevena: I'm very pleased to be following the member for Chilliwack-Hope on the issue of renal care and dialysis and note that the minister is talking about access — for people in a region to be able to get to dialysis.

I know of at least two people who have had to actually move their homes from Gold River to Nanaimo because that's the only place they can get dialysis. They haven't been able to get space in Cumberland, and even if they did get space in Cumberland, they'd still have to get from Gold River to Cumberland every day. It's not practical.

That is, in some ways, the easy case. We have people — I know the minister doesn't live in my constituency but knows it well — coming down from Kingcome to Nanaimo.

We're getting a new hospital in Campbell River. At the moment we have had no commitment from the health authority — because it's obviously not the Vancouver Island Health Authority governing this — that there would be renal space in this new hospital. I wondered whether I could work with the minister to ensure that, when we're talking about getting a new facility, it has the adequate care so that even people who have long distances to travel won't have so far to travel.

[1740]

Hon. M. de Jong: I thought that the best thing I could do at the outset is simply confirm whether the business case and the description, now that we're into procurement stages for north Island's Campbell River hospital…. We'll check this, but the initial description I have does not refer to a renal dialysis service. So let us assume for the purpose of this conversation that that is so, and if that is not the case or something has changed recently, then I will ensure that the member knows.

It means that at the moment, as the member has pointed out, the Cumberland Health Centre, as I think the member knows, was recently…. I think it was June of last year that the capacity there was doubled. Having had the opportunity to visit there, it is a modern facility. The patients that were there seemed very, very pleased and content with the open-air feel of it.

So there's Cumberland. I think what I hear the member saying is that she is advocating for the expansion of
[ Page 12017 ]
service and inclusion for service at Campbell River. The best I can do at this point is probably to repeat what I said to the member's colleague and suggest that a good place to start might be to call the Provincial Renal Agency and indicate, as the member has here, what the concern is.

They should have a registry of the number of patients. The member is aware of two from Gold River, and that's a drive. If you're in Tahsis, it can be a walk, I'm told. But that can be a tricky drive any time of the year, coming up from Gold River.

Maybe what I'd suggest, if she could make…. We'll warn the Provincial Renal Agency to expect a call and at least begin the process of the dialogue about what the numbers are, how many people and patients are affected. Then we'll take the discussion from there.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for that. It would be very helpful, because as I say, people have actually had to move from Gold River to live in Nanaimo for care.

[1745]

We had a conversation after the announcement of the hospitals. We have a very regular meeting of stakeholders involved with the hospital, and we had a briefing with the interim project manager from VIHA who categorically said that there was not going to be any renal at the hospital, which is why I brought it up.

I think, sadly, it's a growing issue for many people in the north Island, so we would really like to get access to that service. I will follow up with the agency and ministry.

The second question I have also involves travel. This is for macular degeneration. I've had a constituent who was told she needs treatment for macular degeneration. She lives in Campbell River. If she goes to either Victoria or Vancouver, she can be treated under MSP. She doesn't have to pay.

She could have it done in the Comox Valley, but the injections would cost her $175 each. I'm wondering if the minister could explain why there would be this discrepancy. The person obviously wants to be able to get the assistance without having to pay $175 for it.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member, I believe, is referring to a treatment and service that is now covered. So on the surface, there is no explanation for why someone would be charged. Therefore, we're interested in receiving the details.

There has been some — maybe controversy is too strong a word — debate around a particular type of medication. I'm delving into areas here now with some hesitancy. For two available medications, there is something of a debate amongst the practitioners and the producers of this medication about which one is better and which one should be used.

As I recall, there may be issues…. It's possible that someone endeavoured to tack on a surcharge for the use of one of those medications. I'm not certain that's the case. I don't know anything about the case. On the surface, a service that is now covered…. It wasn't always, by the way; it is now. Where that treatment is provided should in no way determine whether or not someone is paying a fee or a surcharge. We'll happily look into it.

C. Trevena: I will get the full details from my constituency office and get it to the minister's office for follow-up.

My final question is…. I apologize for changing staff so quickly. It's something completely different. It's about hospice care in Campbell River. We have a very active hospice society, but we don't have a physical hospice.

The hospice society has been working very hard to try and get at least one bed funded, has been looking at excess capacity in one of the seniors' facilities in the city and has been really struggling to essentially convince the health authority this is going to be a good use of public money, to get this bed funded.

The society has estimated that by having just one bed funded — and they'd be looking eventually to build this up — it would likely benefit 15 to 20 people who would otherwise be taking a hospital bed, an acute care bed, for their last days and weeks.

[1750]

I know that provincially there is a very positive approach towards hospices, but I wondered if the minister could give some encouragement so that we can start building up beyond the voluntary societies, where people are going into their own homes, to make it that we are getting hospice beds funded and hospice facilities funded, rather than just hospice voluntary work funded.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I can. Again, the best evidence or proof of that is the steadily expanded number of hospice and palliative hospice beds that are now available on a publicly funded basis across British Columbia.

I should say this. I tend to have a little bit of a bias on that evolving realm of service, insofar as I share the member's enthusiasm for the power of the volunteer element that many of the hospice societies can draw upon in communities across British Columbia. I saw that firsthand in my own community. Prince George is another example. There are numerous examples. In short, I agree wholeheartedly with the proposition that hospice is a legitimate and important component to the continuum of care that exists between the time that a person is born and the time that they die.

I would not presume to guarantee the member here that there will be a funded bed or funded beds in a particular community, though I am hopeful that we can continue to expand. Finally, I would say that my hope and my bias is to do that in lockstep with the society, to ensure that we capitalize on the goodwill and the power of volunteerism that they represent. That usually involves two things: capital campaigns around the development of a hospice location, a freestanding hospice….
[ Page 12018 ]

In some places…. In Mission, for example, that was addressed by taking one floor of an existing hospital and converting it into a remarkable hospice facility that serves the needs. The local hospice group was supportive and lends itself to providing counselling and care, in concert with the health authority.

I'm hoping that as the hospice services expand, we are able to do so in a way that does not diminish the important contribution that the volunteer-based organizations like the hospice association in Campbell River represent.

C. Trevena: I think the problem that Campbell River Hospice Society has been facing is it feels like it's almost getting a block with the health authority, Vancouver Island Health Authority. I mean, it spends most of its time fundraising, like so many societies do. It does very active fundraising, but it doesn't get proportionately very much money from VIHA, compared to other societies. And it is serving the whole of the north Island. It's based in Campbell River, but it serves the whole of the north Island.

[1755]

While the minister, obviously, can't direct the health authority in how it intends to spend its budget, I wondered if the minister would be looking, perhaps, at some almost standardized model for what health authorities should be providing a hospice society or a hospice for funding, so that per person, per capita, we'd get a fairer deal in Campbell River and the north Island.

Hon. M. de Jong: What I can tell the member is that there is an ongoing examination of end-of-life care which is probably more expansive than just hospice.

In making that observation I will advise the member of another observation of my own, and that is something that we do need to overcome. The member was correct and generous in pointing out that the Minister of Health doesn't sit in the office upstairs and direct the health authorities as to where their budgets are going to be expended. But I do, from time to time, pick up certain trends and certain biases. I have revealed one of my own about the importance of working and taking advantage of working in partnership with hospice organizations.

I think there is still a lingering hesitancy…. Confronted by a choice between delivering an end-of-life palliative program contained within the confines of the health authority or partnering with a volunteer-driven organization, I think there is a bias in favour of the former.

What I see is that as new kinds of partnership get formed or a level of confidence arises around the versatility, robustness, solidness of an organization, some of that anxiety goes away.

I understand the anxiety. Something as complex and important and emotional as end-of-life care, palliative care, hospice care…. When the health authority locks arms with a volunteer organization, well, they're in it together. Both sides have to uphold their side of the bargain, and I think there is some institutional hesitancy around that.

My experience is that…. My bias, as I've said a number of times now, is that in many communities the risk is very low. The hospice organizations, for whatever reason — and it's quite remarkable — have a presence and a strength that goes beyond many other volunteer organizations.

[1800]

I actually don't know how the people do it. I mean, some of these volunteers are with folks at that incredible time in their life as life ebbs away and somehow draw on the strength…. I don't know why you wouldn't want to take advantage of that and find new models that allow that to happen.

The health authorities will want certainty, though, and they will want to know that in forging those kinds of partnerships, they don't get to the end of the year and the organization says: "Well, we didn't have a very good year, and therefore, we're not in a position to meet our obligations." That's why it has to be a relationship built on trust that both parties are capable and will fulfil their obligations.

I haven't given the member much to take to the bank today in this conversation, except to, perhaps, reveal an approach and a view that I have about not just the value of hospice as part of that suite of end-of-life care but the value that the hospice movement in British Columbia has as a volunteer-driven organization that has such a strong presence in many, many communities.

M. Farnworth: I actually appreciate the minister's comments on the hospice discussion that took place with the member for North Island. It would be an interesting discussion to continue because of my own experience in the past year, particularly with the Crossroads Hospice in Port Moody, which is volunteer and very much in partnership with the health authority. It really is a remarkable model. As the minister said, I can't understand how people are able to do it, but they do it, and they do an incredible job.

However, we are limited in time today, and there's at least one more thing I'd like us to get through today because we don't….

House Leaders today. It used to be a House Leader would say: "That's it." Those were the old standards — right?

A Voice: I remember when you could take what the House Leader…

M. Farnworth: …said to the bank — exactly. That was it — right? These new House Leaders today. God, you ask for more time, and you get it.

Anyway, we've got additional time tomorrow, but to-
[ Page 12019 ]
day before we rise, I'd like to talk about an issue that was raised by a constituent, and it deals with registered clinical counsellors. There's a series of questions I'd like to ask the minister. In a nutshell, psychotherapy in this province is not regulated by legislation but through the B.C. Association of Clinical Counsellors, and there are some concerns raised by a constituent.

Is the minister aware of discussions that have taken place between the B.C. Association of Clinical Counsellors officials and Ministry of Health officials on the matter of including registered clinical counsellors under the Health Professions Act? I gather meetings were held in May and January. If so, what's the minister's position on this particular issue?

[1805]

Hon. M. de Jong: What I am able to tell him is that discussions have been ongoing with the CPCA, most recently at the end of last year. I should in fairness say to the member that at the time, the CPCA was advised that the government didn't anticipate moving forward with their request to create a specific college for them. They have asked to re-engage later this year and continue to advocate on behalf of their position. But I would not want the member to garner the impression that something is imminent on that front.

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

I guess one of the issues that's being raised is around issues which colleges often deal with — that is, issues of discipline and how to deal with the complaints process. In the unregulated format right now, my understanding is that a number of issues and controversies have arisen, and there is some concern in terms of how a disciplinary process could in fact be put in place.

I gather that the use of consent agreements is something that's been used to resolve matters where registered clinical counsellors are found guilty of misconduct issues. I wonder if the ministry has any policy on an approach like this. Or do they have any guidelines or recommendations, sort of best practices for unregulated professions, on how to deal with issues of disciplinary matters?

Hon. M. de Jong: There is a more detailed answer to this than I can provide and probably a more accurate one than I would provide. Since we are returning tomorrow afternoon, I wonder if the member might agree to have me bring back additional information tomorrow.

M. Farnworth: I would appreciate that. I think we've got about five minutes before we are due to rise and go into the main chamber. What I would like to do is just raise a brief issue around dermatology. There have been some issues.

One of the fascinating things that has taken place in the last few years is the emergence of clinics and day spas and, with that, the use of lasers in skin procedures. What has been relayed to me by many cosmetic surgeons is that, for example, they're seeing an increase in patients they're having to treat who have received injury or damage from people who are not trained in the proper use of lasers for dermatological procedures. There is a significant lack of regulation in that area.

[1810]

So my question to the minister is: is the ministry aware of this issue, and are they engaged in developing a regulatory framework to deal with the issue of unlicensed use of lasers for dermatological procedures?

Hon. M. de Jong: Are these aestheticians?

M. Farnworth: That is part of the issue. One of the things relayed to me by a cosmetic surgeon is that, in part because of the economic downturn in the United States, you have this very expensive equipment that is now coming up here to Canada and being used. Instead of having somebody who is trained on it and familiar with the use of it — in many cases they are quite a high-powered laser — you have somebody who may have a day or two of training. All of a sudden they are focused on your face with a laser, or some other part of your body. Severe burns have often resulted, and cosmetic surgeons are having to deal with this.

I've been receiving complaints about this as an area that's lacking in regulation. It needs to be dealt with. Is the province or the Ministry of Health aware of the problem, and are they taking any action on it?

Just to add a little bit of additional information that may assist the minister in this particular issue. The service that I've described can be provided by hair salons, medical salons, tanning salons and sometimes by people who have no medical training whatsoever. That would include day spas or aestheticians.

Hon. M. de Jong: Hair removal? Is that what you mean?

M. Farnworth: Yeah. That's something that you and I don't have to worry about.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm the victim of a laser gone wild.

M. Farnworth: Exactly.

Hon. M. de Jong: I have been doing this long enough that I could manufacture a really interesting answer. But it's not something I've heard of, and it doesn't appear to have arisen on the radar screen for officials. We had a situation around Botox. I think the suggestion was that someone was holding themself out to have medical qualifications they didn't have.

It would seem at this point that the remedy lies in
[ Page 12020 ]
consumer protection law and in negligence, but that, of course, isn't what the member is asking about. We've certainly taken the steps the member knows about in terms of regulating access by younger people to tanning salons for tanning purposes.

[1815]

So the best I can probably say at this point is that it is interesting to hear about an emerging trend. I have heard from family and friends enough to know that people do what the member has described. They will go to a place to have hair removed through the use of laser technology. Like any of these instruments, if used improperly, the potential for damage exists.

What I guess I have not heard until today are submissions from dermatologists or dermatologists associations, saying: "This is happening with increased regularity such that we have concerns about how these instruments are being used to the detriment of people." But that doesn't mean it isn't happening, and I'm happy to receive the advice from the member.

M. Farnworth: Mindful of the time, I will just make two quick comments for the minister. The Canadian Dermatology Association has put out a release on this issue, so I would ask if the ministry would have a look at their concerns. Also, I would make a suggestion to look at what other provinces are doing regarding this particular issue. It is one of those…. I know we don't like to…. The '90s are a long time ago, but….

A Voice: Not long enough.

M. Farnworth: The member from Prince George says that it is not long enough, but I'll make this observation. Back in the '90s you did not have the dramatic growth that you have seen, for example, in terms of tattoo parlours, which is very much an unregulated industry, to the point now where there are television shows on cable network every week on cosmetic procedures doing just that.

In the same way, the growth of lasers in dermatological treatments has dramatically increased in the last number of years. It's one of those issues where I think that government needs to be aware of the trends that are taking place.

I think the associations are starting to sound a bit of an alarm, saying, "Look, this really is an area that government needs to pay attention to," whether it is through consumer regulation, as the minister stated, or even more appropriately, I would say, through health regulation. I think it's something that the ministry should look at. Look at what other provincial jurisdictions or other jurisdictions — even in the United States, Australia, the U.K., Europe, for example — are doing in this area. It would probably be worthwhile.

With that, unless the minister wishes to respond to that comment, I would move the committee rise, report significant progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:19 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 © 2012: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada