2013 Legislative Session: First Session, 40th 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, July 23, 2013

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 4, Number 4

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

TUESDAY, JULY 23, 2013

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

N. Letnick: Yesterday we had the honour of recognizing that a new prince was born in the world. Today, because of how special we are, joining us in the member's gallery this afternoon is His Excellency Howard Drake, British High Commissioner to Canada, who is here to deliver the news himself.

He is also joined by Mr. Rupert Potter, British consul general in Vancouver. They're here on the first official visit of the high commissioner to Victoria. He has met with myself and several members of this House. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

[1335]

And just for a little jocularity, I'd like to take the honour of introducing the wife of our member for Maple Ridge–Mission, Marlene Dalton, who's in the gallery watching her husband. We'd like to make you welcome.

J. Shin: It is my pleasure to introduce to the House today my sister from another mother, Kelly O'Neil, who joins us in the gallery. She's severely allergic to politics, she says, but in the name of sisterhood, she hopped on that magic carpet ride with me and joined me on the campaign. Together, we survived the ups and downs that were both exhilarating and nauseating.

Anyone who meets Kel will be instantly captivated by her infectious charm and positivity. I'll miss that as she embarks on her journey to India to pursue her yoga training. I would ask the hon. members to please make her feel welcome.

Hon. S. Anton: I am honoured to introduce today an MLA from Ludhiana, Punjab, and that's Mr. Ranjit Singh Dhillon, who is above us there. I might add that he is a Member of the Legislative Assembly in the Punjab, and he's also a former city councillor, so he has the political background that many have in this House.

He is joined by his friend. In fact, he has come for Mr. Narinder Nijjar, who is here. His son is getting married, so this is the cause for the visit. They are joined by their friend Mohan Singh Puni from New York. Would the House make these guests very welcome.

K. Conroy: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce two very special people to the House today. My grandson Ryan is here along with his sister, my granddaughter Aydenn. When I asked them what was so special about them being here — they haven't been here since they were one and two — Ryan said, well, it's because he's the best kid in his school, and Aydenn says it's just because she's the best kid.

With them today is my daughter Sasha, who was here a few weeks ago and got to come back again. Would the House please join me in making them all very welcome.

I have one more special announcement to make that we don't do that often in this House, but the member for Port Coquitlam is celebrating a very special day today. I think we should all take the opportunity to wish him a very happy birthday.

Hon. S. Cadieux: In the gallery today I have a friend who has the distinct honour of having known me my entire life — well, actually, her entire life, because I am a few months older. Our fathers have been friends since they were four years old, so she is more like family. She's a music therapist and a piano teacher and a very dear friend. If the House would help me welcome Natasha Little.

G. Holman: I have the pleasure of introducing to the House today Sky Thomas Taylor Mundell, 22 years old and attending the University of Victoria STEPS Forward program. He's a fourth-year sound engineering student, a blind jazz pianist and a 2011 winner of Vancouver Island's Got Talent. He went on to play at Planet Hollywood in Las Vegas.

By the way, he's also residing in my constituency. He also received the Amazing Kids award. He's accompanied by his care worker and best friend, Blake Gavin Hamilton. I would ask the House to welcome them today.

R. Lee: In the gallery today we have seven visitors from Burnaby North and Italy. Randy Rinaldo and his father, Bortolo Rinaldo, are familiar names in Burnaby. Since 1972 Mr. Rinaldo has decorated his house on Kensington and Curtis every Christmas, which attracts many local residents and tourists who stop their cars to take photos.

Mr. Rinaldo also collected over $100,000 for the Michael Cuccione Foundation. Bortolo Rinaldo received his 2012 Immigrant of the Year award from the Italian Cultural Centre for his contributions to the community.

[1340]

Today Randy Rinaldo brings his guests from Italy to Victoria to enjoy our good weather. They are Randy's cousins — Dr. Arturo Panighel, who has just retired as a police commissioner; Lucia Panighel; Luca Panighel; Gloria Panighel; and Matteo Panighel. Would the House please join me to give giving them the warmest welcome.

L. Throness: I want to introduce Susan Mathies in the gallery today. Susan Mathies comes from Chilliwack, where she and her husband, Gordon, operate Cannor Nurseries. That's not the baby kind of nursery. That's a
[ Page 918 ]
tree and shrub nursery. She's a great friend, a great supporter. I would ask that the House make her welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: This past weekend there was a very special celebration and event that took place. All of us in this House know that we're surrounded and supported by wonderful staff. This weekend one of my staff was actually married. Today I was hoping the House would recognize and congratulate Terry Lalari and his beautiful wife. They had a fantastic celebration. Many colleagues from the House joined in their celebration. We wanted to wish them congratulations and wish them much happiness in the years ahead.

Hon. A. Virk: We speak often about the enormity of the task in front of our educational institutes as we prepare the next generation. I'm very pleased to have some special guests from Kwantlen Polytechnic University with us today. First of all, we have Dr. Alan Davis, the president and vice-chancellor of Kwantlen Polytechnic University. Along with him is the chair of the board of governors, Mr. Gord Schoberg. Also with them is Keri van Gerven, a graduate intern in the president's office. Would the House please make them welcome.

Also, perhaps they're behind me, but I have 48 members of the Indo-Canadian Seniors Society — perhaps they are late — that are on their way as well. If they do show up as we're speaking, if the House would make them welcome as well.

M. Dalton: I'd also like to acknowledge the presence of my lovely and patient wife in the chambers. We've been married this week 28 years. She's seated with good friends of ours, Craig and Linda Rudd. Craig is the president of my constituency. Linda is also on the board.

Craig — the last time he was here was in 1968, when he was a page. He told me a story. He has a confession to make. Actually, I'm doing it on his behalf. He was playing in the elevators, and the Speaker brought him to the Sergeant-at-Arms and had a little chat with him. Anyway, it's his first time, with him here. It's great to have him join us. Would the House please make him feel welcome.

J. Horgan: One of the advantages of sitting here with time on your hands is you can gaze up in the gallery and see the odd time a familiar face. And who do we see today but Ann Fraser Mall? She's a Victoria resident. She survived the quirks and characteristics of Corky Evans for many, many years, and she has come back to this place, inexplicably, to watch question period with some friends. Would the House please make her very, very welcome.

Hon. D. McRae: I have two sets of introductions today.

In the gallery above us we have good family friends. I see we have Elizabeth Yap Chung and her son Cooper and her daughter Charlotte. Would the House please make them welcome.

If I may, probably and perhaps the most important introduction I've had yet to make in the Legislature in my five years. Sitting beside Elizabeth and her children is my family. Today I would like to introduce the House to my wife, Deanne McRae; my daughter Gracie, who is ten; and Chloe, who is patient at three. If they don't make it through question period, it's not because we scared them away. It's just that Chloe's patience might be a little less than some of ours. Could the House please make them welcome.

H. Bains: They are actually now piling into the gallery. The Surrey-Delta Indo-Canadian Seniors Society members are all here. My constituency.... I quite often go there and spend a lot of time with them. There's a wealth of knowledge and experience, led by the president, Mr. Maghar Singh Sanghe. Please help me welcome them to this beautiful House.

Hon. B. Bennett: It's my pleasure today to introduce three folks up in the gallery — Paul Kariya, the executive director of Clean Energy; and Mike Wise, director of project development for Ballard, who is also with Clean Energy; and Colleen Giroux-Schmidt, also with Clean Energy. Colleen is the director of regional affairs for Innergex.

[1345]

I know that everyone in the House is very excited about the clean energy option here in British Columbia, so help me make these three folks welcome.

M. Mungall: Well, he's not in the House today, but he is thinking of me. My husband, Zak Matieschyn, is celebrating our second wedding anniversary back home, and I'm celebrating here. I just want to wish him a wonderful day, a happy anniversary — and thank you very much for the beautiful flowers.

Hon. M. de Jong: Marty Snider is a true citizen of the world, having been raised in various parts of Africa and Europe. We're thrilled that he and his wife and their children now call Abbotsford home and even more thrilled that he has taken time to visit with us here in the chamber. I know all members will make him feel welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

SEWAGE TREATMENT IN
CAPITAL REGIONAL DISTRICT

A. Weaver: This is a statement about sewage — $783 million worth of it. It is also a statement about science and the role of science in decision-making.

All too often in today's society a policy decision is
[ Page 919 ]
made, and then, after the fact, evidence is sought to justify it. I like to call this decision-based evidence making. My hope is that in the capital regional district we can look at the evidence for sewage treatment and then begin to consider what decisions best follow from that evidence. That's called evidence-based decision-making.

Let's be clear. Victoria needs sewage treatment. At present we are dumping screened sewage directly into the ocean. But the science states very clearly that the secondary sewage treatment plan currently being considered will not address Victoria's sewage problem.

The oceans around southern Vancouver Island already break down organic matter very effectively at little cost to the environment, and they do this for free. What the oceans do not treat is the toxins and chemical waste that pose serious environmental and public health risks.

That being said, the proposed sewage treatment plant wouldn't treat this waste either. Most of it would be dumped right back in the ocean.

To put it succinctly, the current plan would see us spend $783 million to achieve that which, at the moment, we can get for free, without addressing the very real environmental and public health concerns associated with untreated chemical waste. That's the science.

Now, on its own, science cannot prescribe policy, but it can — and I believe it should — inform policy. What the science tells us is that the solution does not match the problem.

We must then ask ourselves how we can help ensure that the plan addresses the problem in the most cost-effective way possible. There are many grass-roots organizations working hard on this issue, and many others at all levels of government who are doing their part as well.

Perhaps it's time for all of us to work together on sewage treatment in the capital regional district in a way that provides a lasting legacy of responsible, evidence-based decision-making.

OKANAGAN WINE INDUSTRY

D. Ashton: I rise today to speak about something absolutely amazing that we've done in the Okanagan — much sweeter than what we were just discussing. We figured out how to capture sunshine and bottle it. It's enjoyed with a fine meal, sipped on an outdoor patio. It's a fuel for great conversations, and maybe even fuel for the soul.

It's Okanagan wine. In my riding of Penticton two very innovative people are making a difference to the local wine industry.

John Skinner of Painted Rock Winery has tremendous vision, seeking to continually produce exceptional, award-winning wines. Red Icon, the winery's signature red, has been described as perfection in a bottle, and demand for it is very high. Painted Rock will soon be opening their beautiful new tasting room, providing a better way for the winery to share its products with locals and visitors who turn out and help boost our economy.

Tony Holler of Poplar Grove is also helping attract visitors and promote local industry. Poplar Grove's star is on the rise thanks to high-quality, award-winning wines produced at the state-of-the-art winery and enjoyed with their signature restaurant.

People from all over the world are coming to Penticton and the greater Okanagan area to enjoy the good life and fine food and drink in a spectacular setting and the 130 wineries within an hour's drive of Penticton.

Those coming to sample our wines are also discovering the abundance of fresh, delicious fruit grown in the area, a case of one industry helping another, working to help put the spotlight on Penticton and the area and showcase it as a fantastic destination for food, wine and enthusiasts.

[1350]

With the contributions of John Skinner, Tony Holler and many other vintners, the B.C. wine industry is proving it is capable of producing internationally significant products that can compete on a world stage. It is just too bad that visitors from our sister provinces can't legally return with B.C.'s incredible fuel for the soul. It is time to free our grapes.

SOCCER IN VICTORIA

R. Fleming: Periodically on both sides of the House, members make debatable claims that their constituency is Hockeyville or B.C.'s lacrosse capital. I couldn't comment on that, but what's long past debate is the fact that Victoria is British Columbia's soccer capital.

Just two weeks ago more Victoria soccer silverware was added when the Victoria Highlanders FC were crowned champions of the northwest PDL league, defeating the reserves of MLS-affiliated clubs like the Vancouver Whitecaps, Seattle Sounders and Portland Timbers.

But that's just the latest in Victoria's contribution to the game. Oldest club — Victoria West FC, founded 1896. First winner of the provincial cup, 1911, then called the McBride Shield and awarded by Premier Richard McBride — Victoria, and many, many more in subsequent years.

First Canadian team to defeat a visiting professional team from Britain — Victoria All-Stars, who downed Fulham FC in 1950. John F. Kennedy Cup winners in 1967 — Victoria O'Keefes. Sports Hall of Fame award for six B.C. championships and four Canadian championships between 1976 and 1984 — Victoria West FC.

Canada's one and unfortunately only appearance in the Men's FIFA World Cup in 1986 happened because Victoria's George Pakos smashed in the key goals to qualify. That side also featured Victorians Jamie Lowery and Ian Bridge.

Then there's the massive haul of national and Canada West trophies by the University of Victoria Vikes women
[ Page 920 ]
and men's sides, with retiring coach Bruce Wilson, also a 1986 World Cup player, winning three CIS national titles.

Today there are four leagues in Victoria, dozens of clubs, tens of thousands of players on teams aged under five to over 50. When international soccer comes to town, Victorians enjoy watching soccer as much as playing it, with 15,000 attending the 2008 FIFA U-20 World Cup.

Proper football has been in the blood of Victorians for a long time, and that is why Victoria will remain soccer's capital for a long time to come.

ASHCROFT HOSPITAL AUXILIARY

J. Tegart: I rise today to speak about a small group of women and a couple of men that are continuing a tradition that began in Ashcroft 100 years ago. In 1913 the first meeting of the Ashcroft Hospital Auxiliary was held, and today, though renamed the Ashcroft and District Health Care Auxiliary, this group is continuing to improve the lives of residents.

They began by supplying food, linens and pyjamas to patients at the Lady Minto Hospital and continued until the new hospital was built in 1971. Fundraising was innovative in the first century of this group's existence. The women earned money by presiding over stalls at the Ashcroft race meet, holding dances and having pound parties in which baskets were auctioned with supplies from members' gardens, pantries and wine cellars.

In later years the thrift shop was opened, both to raise funds and to help local residents purchase needed items at a low cost. It continues to this day.

The auxiliary purchased the first X-ray machine as well as many beds for the hospital; furnishings for the nurses residence; wheelchairs, X-ray tables, croupettes; and a battery-powered plant for the operating table. Important diagnostic equipment has been purchased which has allowed many people to get the help they need right at the local hospital, rather than having to travel to Kamloops.

In addition to fundraising, members visit patients in the long-term-care wing and hospice. They volunteer at mammogram clinics, and they offer bursaries to our local students.

What wonderful contributions they've made to our area for 100 years. I ask all members of the House to join me in offering them sincere congratulations and thanks for the work they do.

[1355]

CHILD CARE SERVICES
IN NEW WESTMINSTER

J. Darcy: I'm very glad that the member for Victoria–Swan Lake did not say that his constituency is the lacrosse capital of Canada, because that distinction clearly belongs to the Royal City, to New Westminster, where we love our Salmonbellies and where we are home to the national Lacrosse Hall of Fame. But I digress.

When I returned home last Thursday, I picked up a copy of the Royal City Record and was very excited and proud to learn that New Westminster had struck gold with its child care strategy, in particular that New Westminster had won an award from the Planning Institute of British Columbia — its 2013 Award for Excellence in Planning Practice for child care strategy.

This goes back a few years, when the city adopted a child care strategy. But they did more than talk; they took action. To date, 18 of 21 recommendations have been put in place.

The results speak for themselves: the construction of the first civic child care facility, operated by a non-profit provider; development of a child care reserve fund; establishment of a civic child care grant program; and the implementation of a child care protocol between the city and the school district.

To date this plan has seen a result of a net increase of 324 licenced child care spaces in New Westminster in a four-year period, and 104 new spaces have been added in the last year alone — child care spaces that are contributing to the social and economic development of New Westminster and also providing opportunities for children in all areas of child development, and essential for attracting and retaining people in the workforce.

Certainly, child care is an issue that I hear about wherever I go in my community — both the availability of spaces and also the exorbitant cost to families, which often runs second to rent or mortgage and, in some cases, is even more….

Madame Speaker: Thank you, Member.

J. Darcy: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

OLGA KOTELKO

R. Sultan: This week, when one of our athlete members is competing for gold in Lyons, France, I thought it would be appropriate for me to tell you about one of my athletic constituents.

Olga Kotelko holds 27 track and field world records and is only 94 years old. Olga was one of 11 children, born to an immigrant family of Ukrainians in Saskatchewan. After her retirement from the profession of teaching, where she ran a one-room schoolhouse, she took up softball.

Although at age 70 she made a double play, that wasn't good enough since she was replaced by an upstart 55-year-old. So she took up track and field instead.

At the world masters in Germany only four years ago, she broke the world record for her age group in the hammer throw — 5.64 metres; and the 100 metre sprint, at 23.95 seconds.

Subsequently, Olga achieved age-graded world records
[ Page 921 ]
in long jump; triple jump; high jump; shot put; discus; javelin; hammer throw; and the 100 metre, 200 metre and 400 metre sprints. In her career, she has in fact won 700 gold medals.

Recently, inspired by this, I thought I'd better get a few hints. I met up with Olga at Sentinel high school in West Vancouver, and she offered to give me a few tips on how to throw the discus. I managed a pretty wobbly effort, I must confess. But to my eye, it was not bad, and I thought it exceeded her throw by a couple of inches. I was exultant. Olga was rather noncommittal. My assistant acidly pointed out to me, in my triumph, that I was up against a much smaller — and much smaller — 94-year-old woman.

Olga comments on seniors staying active. She says: "It's not how old you are. It's how you get old."

Oral Questions

BUDGET DEFICIT AND
GOVERNMENT DEBT

M. Farnworth: The perils of getting older.

[1400]

The public accounts for fiscal 2012 were released this morning, and they make for quite interesting reading. Despite the Premier's recent election campaign bus slogan about "Debt-Free B.C.," the audited financial statements contain the real facts. Debt rose $5.6 billion in 2012, to a staggering $55.8 billion. Debt is expected to grow another $6 billion next year, setting another record: the fastest debt growth in B.C. history.

Can the Finance Minister explain how debt-free turned into debt spree?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member, the hon. critic, for the question. It is, actually, quite compelling reading when you consider some of the challenges that we have been confronted by, when you consider how the economy has continued to grow and when you consider the robust capital construction program that has continued in place — over $3 billion, in fact, of roads, hospitals, schools that continue to be built, to the benefit of British Columbians.

I'm sure, in his reading of the public accounts, the hon. member came upon the part of the public accounts that indicate taxpayer-supported debt actually increased in excess of $400 million less than was contemplated when the budget was tabled in February 2012.

Madame Speaker: Member for Port Coquitlam on a supplemental.

GOVERNMENT DEBT FROM
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS

M. Farnworth: The hypocrisy is that the government ran around this province proclaiming "debt-free B.C.," and we're having the fastest debt growth in the history of the province of British Columbia. But it's not just the debt. It's contractual obligations, which in 2006 stood at $34 billion and in 2013 stand at $100 billion. It's $100 billion in contractual obligations, which includes $55 billion in private power contracts that are driving up costs and rates at B.C. Hydro. And of course, the public is kept in the dark about the details of these contracts.

My question to the Finance Minister is this. What plan, if any, does the government have to put the brakes on the growing value of contractual obligations?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll come to the second part of the hon. member's question, because I'm certain I will get the chance. But let's test the veracity of the first part of his statement as it relates to debt and the province's ability to deal responsibly with that debt.

The measurement — and I know he knows this — that any impartial analyst applies is the debt-to-GDP ratio. It is today, in the public accounts, confirmed at 17 percent. It was projected to be 17.6 percent in the budget, February 2012. It came in at 17 percent.

By any measure, and certainly by the measure of the agencies that rate British Columbia's performance…. By the way, they continue to assign us the highest-possible rating available, unlike virtually every other jurisdiction in North America — a fact that I don't blame members opposite for being unfamiliar with, because it's an achievement that singularly eluded them during an entire decade in office.

Madame Speaker: Member for Port Coquitlam on a supplemental.

[1405]

M. Farnworth: I do have a supplemental question, but I would like to address one point that my colleague the Minister of Finance suggested. I'd like to remind him that when you look at B.C.'s ratio of net debt to GDP and the ratio of government program expenses to GDP, they were lower under the NDP in the '90s, from 1991 to 2001 than they were under this government since 2001.

But the issue, hon. Speaker…. The issue, hon. Speaker….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: The issue, today, though, has been the dramatic growth of contractual obligations by this government and the lack of plan to rein in the control of
[ Page 922 ]
the growth of contractual obligations from $34 billion in 2006 to $100 billion. And a real issue is the lack of accountability and transparency around those contractual obligations. They've been warned about this by the Auditor General.

So my question to the Finance Minister is this: what actions will this government undertake to ensure greater accountability and transparency with these contracts that they've committed the public to supporting and paying, for decades into the future?

Hon. M. de Jong: The reference to the Auditor General may be selective in this instance, because if we had followed the Auditor General's advice to a T, we would be today reporting a budget surplus of $2 billion.

The contracts, which the member refers to, address services that British Columbians require and expect. Whether it is in the health care sector or on the road maintenance side, some of them are longer term. They require payments on an ongoing basis, year over year. We report openly the value of those contracts.

Is the member truly suggesting that if those contracts didn't appear, if they weren't quantified or if the costs associated with them weren't reported, the requirement to provide those services wouldn't still exist? Of course they would.

In fact, you can make a very good case for saying that with those contracts, as they are available to the public — I think of the 3P partnerships, like the Abbotsford Regional Hospital and cancer treatment centre — the public has more certainty than ever before about the cost and provision of services into the future. And that's a good thing.

SPENDING BY PREMIER'S OFFICE

J. Horgan: Just to the minister's last point, buying 5,000 gigawatt hours more energy than you need at five times the market rate is not good management by any math. But let's go from the ridiculous to the sublime, and I'll direct my question to the Minister Responsible for Core Review.

In our review of the public accounts this morning, we discover 1,310 transactions by the Premier's office worth $475,000. Now, I know that the core review is responsible for looking at those areas of government that we may not want to get into any longer. And I would suggest that $3,000 for Ferris' Oyster Bar for two meals; $2,600 to the Lift Bar and Grill; $2,200 to the Bishop's Restaurant; Cioppino's, $2,200; the Blue Water Café, $2,000 — would the Minister for Core Review agree with us on this side that half a million dollars wining and dining is probably something the government doesn't need to do?

Hon. M. de Jong: I guess it's a time-honoured tradition around the release of public accounts to pick receipts that have interesting names, and there are actually a number of them.

Interjections.

[1410]

Hon. M. de Jong: Thank you. I didn't think it was worthy of that, but thank you.

Restaurants; a pool and spa where, actually, life-saving rings were purchased; a costume rental place for a Smokey the Bear costume rental.

So these receipts are disclosed. They are done so openly. If the member has a specific concern around one of them that I can answer, I'm happy to do so. But we take very seriously our responsibility to the taxpayers to guard their moneys responsibly and to ensure that the taxpayer is getting good value for those moneys.

J. Horgan: I appreciate that with this year's public accounts we got a deflection and a defence right off the bat for the oddities that the minister just read from. It's in the press package. The official opposition looked at that deflection right away and then zeroed in on a half a million dollars — half a million dollars that's going to wining and dining.

Quails Gate Vineyards, surprisingly, is on the list. Summerhill, Cedar Creek Estate, Burrowing Owl Estate, Road 13 Vineyards. Here's, of course, one that I would be proud of: the Rocky Creek Winery in Cowichan Bay. That is an expense that I believe we on the Island can certainly support.

But the point is this. Again to the minister of the core review: if you're not prepared…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

J. Horgan: …to defend $55 billion in unfunded liabilities at B.C. Hydro, perhaps you could stand up for the taxpayers and say to the Premier's office: "Five hundred grand, wining and dining, is money that could be better spent on health care, better spent on education, any number of things beyond feeding ourselves."

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member was very generous, and I'm happy to take him up on his offer to visit the facility that he spoke of. Hey, I'll buy.

The task of promoting British Columbia, the task of marketing British Columbia, the task of ensuring that people not just within British Columbia but elsewhere in Canada and elsewhere around the world understand that we are a jurisdiction open for business is a 24-7 task, and we have precisely the right person in the right place at the right point in our history, in the Premier, to perform that task.
[ Page 923 ]

REPORT ON BURNS LAKE MILL EXPLOSION
AND SAFETY AT B.C. MILLS

N. Macdonald: Yesterday we asked why two important reports into the tragic explosions and fires at two northern B.C. lumber mills have been censored and hidden. The two reports dealt with specific details about current practices at mills, practices which may have contributed to the two fires.

Now, the Jobs Minister had barely finished speaking yesterday when another mill fire occurred, again in Prince George. What we're hearing from workers, what we're hearing from companies…. They tell us that safety has to be the priority and that all information has to be shared. So the question to the minister responsible is: will she insist that the full reports be released today so that practices can be altered and that workers can be kept safe?

[1415]

Hon. S. Bond: The member is correct. There was a fire at a mill yesterday. We are extremely grateful that the injuries were very minor. In fact, I'm advised that the worker — there was a single worker that was injured — was given advice that that person could actually even go back to work today. We should be clear. There is no indication at this point, I'm advised, that it had anything to do with combustible dust.

As I clearly outlined in this House yesterday, there was a process involved where the B.C. Safety Authority and WorkSafe British Columbia talked about the investigations that had been done and clearly recognized that the release of some information — not the safety-related information — could compromise a follow-up Crown process. All of the safety information was released to companies across the province, as I said in this House yesterday.

Madame Speaker: Columbia River–Revelstoke on a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: It is a full six months since three ministers were in a meeting that led to the suppression of the report — a vast majority of the information. There are recommendations, but within the report there is information. Yesterday in question period we presented two examples of things that were not released publicly that are of interest to companies and workers.

The minister must be hearing the same thing from workers' organizations, from workers themselves, from companies. They want the full information. They want the full report released. It has been six months since that meeting. When is the minister going to make worker safety the priority it needs to be and release the full report?

Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite, I clarified for him yesterday, which I was very prepared to do, that of course ministers were briefed on a file as complicated and sensitive as this one. People in British Columbia lost their lives. There was a concern expressed by WorkSafe British Columbia to the B.C. Safety Authority — concern that if the report was released in its entirety, it would put at risk an independent Crown process that could lead to jail time and fines.

That information, that briefing, was provided to ministers. Ministers did not suppress a report. They were simply briefed. What did happen was the information was released. In fact, the member may want to go and read the Safety Authority report, which produced nine recommendations that were from that report released directly to industry. That's what happened with the report, and I've made that very clear on numerous occasions in this House and outside.

INVESTIGATION INTO
BURNS LAKE MILL EXPLOSION

L. Krog: The Jobs Minister continues to insist that the matter is the subject of an ongoing Crown process, as she referred to it. Yet we know that a conference call to discuss the case included three ministers of the Crown, including the current Deputy Premier; the former Attorney General, now the current Jobs Minister; and the former Jobs Minister, Pat Bell.

Can the Attorney General tell us if she thinks it's appropriate for three cabinet ministers to take part in a meeting to discuss the subject of an ongoing investigation?

Hon. S. Bond: What's most disappointing about that question is that it comes from a member who actually is a member of the bar. He, of all people, knows full well that when there is a Crown proceeding underway, it is essential that the information is presented and, in an unfettered way, Crown has the opportunity to look at potential charges. We are talking about a process that, ultimately, could result in jail time or fines.

[1420]

That conference call was a briefing. Ministers of the Crown go through briefing processes all of the time. And to reiterate, the statement that was released by the B.C. Safety Authority says clearly that the report…. There were concerns expressed by WorkSafe B.C. The B.C. Safety Authority carefully considered the request from WorkSafe B.C., and they determined that releasing the information necessary to enhance safety was paramount. We proceeded to release detailed recommendations in that report in view of the full report.

Madame Speaker: Member for Nanaimo on a supplemental.
[ Page 924 ]

L. Krog: It is precisely because I am a member of the bar that I appreciate that justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done. The current Attorney General, I trust, will agree that the integrity of an investigation should be of paramount importance. That relies on independence from political interference or even the perception of political interference. Having three cabinet ministers, especially one being the Attorney General, attend such a meeting impacts that perception.

Once again, to the Attorney General: what possible rationale is there for the Attorney General of the day to take part in a meeting to discuss an ongoing investigation with implications of potential criminal proceedings?

Hon. S. Bond: For all of us, especially those of us who live in northern British Columbia, who watched with horror as this whole event occurred…. For the member opposite to suggest that any minister, that any MLA, that anyone in public office would sit in a meeting and suggest that information be suppressed that could lead to the safety of British Columbia workers is offensive at best. That is shameful.

This isn't the first time we've heard this issue. In fact, during the election campaign, others brought this story to the forefront, and do you know, Madame Speaker, what it led to? It led to a family member begging that the NDP and unions not use this issue in a political way — the issue of the report. In fact, they made that clear in a news release, saying: "We understand the necessity of separating the report, and we will, at best, try to be patient." Those families issued a press release asking for this not to become a political issue, and particularly in this House.

Interjections.

ELECTORAL REFORM AND
COOPERATION IN LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

A. Weaver: I couldn't tell whether they were cheering for me standing up or whether they were cheering for the end of the question there.

My question is on a different topic, to the Deputy Premier.

British Columbia has a rich history of exploring potential changes to our electoral system. Some have been successful; others, such as the recent Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform, have not. In fact, the B.C. Liberal Party championed these efforts only a few short years ago. On her radio show on May 7, 2009, the Premier referred to "the ugly realities of the first-past-the-post system" and gave a rousing call of support for the upcoming singular transferable vote referendum.

The Premier argued quite convincingly that changing our electoral system would diminish immeasurably the level of hateful invective in B.C. politics. Members of the opposition, most recently the member for Juan de Fuca, have also recently supported electoral reform.

Given the seemingly bipartisan support for this issue, is the government open to continuing the discussion about bringing a different electoral system, whether it involve a form of proportional representation, such as mixed-member proportional, used in New Zealand, or perhaps preferential voting as is done in Australia and in the election of party leaders in all parties in the province of British Columbia?

[1425]

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. I should acknowledge, also, an indication that he was going to raise this in parliament today.

Like him, I share a certain measure of pride, and I think many members of the government do, for the initiative that was launched after the 2001 election — the citizens' forum, the recommendations that came forward — and that British Columbians had an opportunity to reflect and vote upon not once but twice, in slightly different circumstances and with slightly different amounts of information, certainly, in the second instance — information about the riding, what the riding configuration would look like.

They rendered an opinion. They rendered their verdict on that. As interested as I think the hon. member is, and apparently other members, I have to tell him today that the government does not contemplate any similar initiatives being launched in the near future.

Madame Speaker: Oak Bay–Gordon Head on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: Thank you, Minister, for your response. Given the Premier's statements, then, that with a different electoral system, "finally, for once, politicians will stop trying to win by ruining each other and start trying to win by acknowledging each other," that "if we care about civility in society, we must care about it in politics," and given the current government's desire not to explore electoral reform, does the government currently have any legislation or forthcoming initiatives in the works to promote cooperation across party lines?

Hon. M. de Jong: One is mindful of Churchill's oft-quoted…

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: I hope the British High Commissioner left.

"…the worst system possible, except for all the others." The challenge is not finding people who believe that we can make improvements. It is finding consensus on what those improvements are. We have, to a modest degree,
[ Page 925 ]
over the course of the last number of parliaments and with the cooperation of other members, found some ways to improve how this place operates.

I'm gratified to know that this member is interested both in electoral reform and more practical measures that could be introduced to find ways to promote and provide a platform to the talents that exist in this chamber on all sides of the House.

TRADES-TRAINING ADVERTISING
AND WAIT-LISTS

D. Eby: Yesterday the Minister of Advanced Education confirmed that this government spent $1 million last year, and they're planning on spending another million dollars this year, advertising trades training. Yet at Kwantlen — a school with which the minister should be very familiar, given he was on the board there for five years — there are wait-lists of over a year to do their welding A, automotive, millwright and plumbing courses and wait-lists of over two years to do welding levels B and C and electrical programs.

The minister confirmed yesterday that his ministry doesn't even keep track of wait-lists in this province. If he did keep statistics, he'd know it's not just Kwantlen. At BCIT there are wait-lists for beginning trades programs of two or three years.

Clearly, British Columbians do need to be aware that trades present a remarkable opportunity for them, but can the Minister of Advanced Education please tell British Columbians: why is he spending taxpayer money advertising programs that British Columbians can't even get into?

[1430]

Hon. A. Virk: Well, it's quite interesting. We have a difference on policy opinion on two sides of the House, but I think we have to speak on British Columbia's post-secondary system, first of all.

We have a system that is the envy of the world, a system funded to the tune of $1.9 billion per year, a system that's funded to $5 million a day by the hard-working taxpayers of British Columbia.

I think it's very important, as we see the future, that we have an opportunity of a lifetime — an opportunity of a lifetime to train the next generation, an opportunity of a lifetime to train the next one million workers in this province. It's more than appropriate for the citizens of British Columbia to avail themselves of the opportunities that exist in a new sector and more than appropriate that we must advertise those areas.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

H. Bains: I have 1,824 signatures here, calling on the minister responsible to protect Red Seal trades and reverse a recent decision to create a limited electrical work practitioner certificate for regulated electrical work.

J. Thornthwaite: I am presenting a petition here to change section 49 of the Community Charter — section 49 is "Special powers in relation to dangerous dogs" — or, alternatively, to introduce a new mediation process for the prosecution of alleged dangerous dogs. The petition request is designed to eliminate or reduce the long-term confinement of dogs in short-term confinement facilities without recourse due to court backlogs. I understand there are about 1,700 here, today.

Hon. D. McRae: Madame Speaker, as you and this House know, the member for Parksville-Qualicum is at the world championships competing for our nation. So I have the distinction of presenting a petition on behalf of 41 Parksville-Qualicum residents, with respect to the provincial status of Vancouver Island.

Motions Without Notice

POWERS AND ROLE OF HEALTH COMMITTEE

Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I propose moving the following:

[That the Select Standing Committee on Health be empowered to:

1) Consider the conclusions contained in the Interim Report, October 2012, of the Select Standing Committee on Health of the 39th Parliament; as such, the Interim Report of the Select Standing Committee on Health, and any submissions and evidence received during the 39th Parliament, are referred to the Committee;

2) Outline potential alternative strategies to mitigate the impact of the significant cost drivers identified in the Report on the sustainability and improvement of the provincial health care system; and

3) Identify current public levels of acceptance toward the potential alternative strategies.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Health, the Committee shall be empowered:

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

d) to conduct consultations by any means the committee considers appropriate, including, but not limited to, public hearings and electronic means; and

e) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee;

And shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon
[ Page 926 ]
resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

In short, Madame Speaker, it is a motion which I move, with leave, to permit the continuing of the work that was begun in the 39th parliament by the select standing committee. With leave, I so move.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, continuing Committee of Supply in all three locations: in the chamber the estimates of the Ministry of Health; in Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, begin with the Ministry of Natural Gas Development and Housing, to be followed by the Ministry of Justice; and in the Birch Room the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training estimates.

[1435]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:38 p.m.

On Vote 28: ministry operations, $16,403,475,000 (continued).

The Chair: We resume the budget estimates of the Ministry of Health.

J. Darcy: I'd like to ask a question that doesn't fit neatly into any of the other categories that we have discussed so far, and that has to do with the local sourcing of food for hospitals and residential care facilities. I am hoping that this is an initiative that the minister, as a former Minister of Environment and now Minister of Health and someone who is concerned, as we are, about building local economies in the area of agriculture in particular, will see reason to support.

We have had over many years and especially in this last decade some critical problems with the quality and nutritional nature of food in our hospitals and residential care facilities.

[1440]

The issue of quality of food is an issue that is particularly important for seniors, for whom mealtime is a critical social time. It's important for reasons of both their emotional and mental well-being as well as their physical well-being that the food they are served is healthy and nutritious.

We also now truck in or bring by various modes of transport from many locations far and wide food that is used in British Columbia's health care system, at great expense environmentally and also at the cost of a more aggressive program of sourcing food locally.

My question to the minister is whether, as Minister of Health now, he will take leadership in initiating a program for significantly increasing the sourcing of local food for hospitals and residential care facilities in British Columbia.

Hon. T. Lake: I'm glad to address this topic, as I had the great pleasure on Saturday at the Kamloops Farmers Market of announcing an additional $2 million from the Ministry of Health for the farmers market coupon program, which provides seniors, expectant mothers and vulnerable members of society with coupons to the value of $15 a week to buy produce, meat and many grown-in-B.C. products at local farmers markets around the province.

In fact, the extra $2 million is on top of the $2 million previously put into the program, which will extend the program to a full five years and bring in more and more farmers markets around the province.

I certainly agree that supporting local agriculture is important. However, I would remind the member that in British Columbia 85 percent of our agricultural products are exported. We must be very mindful when we start building walls around British Columbia that if we were to restrict Crown corporations, health authorities to buying local food only, other jurisdictions could do the same, which would lead to the collapse of our agricultural industry here in British Columbia.

The member, I think, makes a good point that we should look for ways and means of supporting our own agriculture industry, certainly, and providing nutritious food, but we certainly have to be aware of the costs as well. It is important that we get best value for money while making sure that we get the outcomes we want and, in this case, making sure we have nutritious food to aid in the recovery of people that may be living in long-term residential care homes or in hospitals.

J. Darcy: Another question to the minister. Is the minister suggesting that there are actually trade barriers to sourcing food locally?

Hon. T. Lake: What I'm saying is that if all jurisdictions were to have a local-food-only policy, the agriculture industry in British Columbia would not be able to survive, because 85 percent of the agricultural products in this province are exported.

J. Darcy: I would ask the minister again: will the min-
[ Page 927 ]
ister exercise leadership in initiating a program like this in health authorities?

Clearly, these programs start, and it's a step-by-step program. You can set targets and increase them over time. But what we need is leadership from the Ministry of Health in order for this to move forward.

The minister talks about cost. There are also costs to local economies. Surely, it's costly to local economies to source food elsewhere rather than locally. I'm suggesting to the minister, I'm asking the minister: does he not think, as a former Minister of Environment, as someone who certainly is an advocate of supporting local agriculture….? Is it not time that we stop having silos in our approaches to policy like this so that the Ministry of Health could show leadership in putting such a program in place?

Hon. T. Lake: In fact, the jury is…. There is certainly nothing settled about the environmental impact of moving food around the world. In fact, there are many studies that indicate that sourcing food globally is, in many cases, more sensitive to climate than locavore food production, which is more intensive in some areas. That's another discussion.

[1445]

What I'm saying to the member is that when we think about initiatives like this, they sound very good on the surface. They sound very motherhood and apple pie. But you have to look at it very carefully. We have to make sure we get the best value for money while, at the same time, making sure we provide the nutrition necessary for patients and those residing in long-term residential care homes.

It certainly is something that is worth discussing, I believe. But it would be premature of me at this point to say that that is something that should be done. Something that should be looked into? Absolutely agree. But I certainly don't have the expertise to know, in fact, although it sounds very good on the surface, whether that is the best way to get the best outcomes.

J. Darcy: One last question in this area. Do we at present track the amount of food in health authorities that is sourced locally? And is the minister prepared…? Maybe I'll let you answer that one first.

Hon. T. Lake: We don't track specifically how much, but let me give some examples of local sourcing throughout the health authorities.

On Vancouver Island VIHA strongly encourages the practice on all sites, whether the food services are contracted or provided by VIHA. They work proactively with Islands West, a produce supplier, to ensure that purchased fruits and vegetables are from Vancouver Island and the Lower Mainland when they are seasonally available. They have successfully provided a variety of local products when they're in season.

For the Provincial Health Services Authority, all contracted providers have been successful in procuring at least some local products. The focus is on buying fresh fruits and vegetables based on what's in season. For example, over the summer, during blueberry season, the contracted food service provider of B.C. Children's Hospital and B.C. Women's Hospital featured a variety of menu items that were made with local B.C. blueberries. There are other examples.

Interior Health has worked on local sourcing, and there are a number of other examples.

To the specific question, we don't track each and every health authority for their local sourcing, but as you can tell from the examples given, many of them make great efforts to source locally whenever possible.

J. Darcy: I think the minister knows from his experience in government already that encouraging is not the same thing as putting in place a program with targets and timetables. Certainly, when I asked this question to the Minister of Agriculture in a meeting a few days ago and when our former critic for Agriculture has asked this question over a period of time, the same words are used: "make every effort." But there is, in fact, no tracking.

I would ask the minister: would he be prepared to put in place a system where we actually study the costs, the nutritional value, the environmental impact and the benefits to the local economy of a program of purchasing food for hospitals and residential care locally?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, it is an interesting question. I make no commitment at this point. I think it's something that…. Certainly, discussions can evolve around that, as I said. I would like to have more expertise before committing to going down that road. Maybe that's something the Standing Committee on Health could canvass as they travel around the province as well.

J. Darcy: To the minister: I will certainly take you up on that offer.

I'd like to ask some questions about commitments that have been made previously by this government in the throne speech. For instance, the February 2013 throne speech included a commitment to "outline improvements for patients in rural and urban areas as well as improvements to primary health care that will have lasting benefits to people throughout our province."

What steps have been taken on this? And is there any spending directed towards this commitment in the current budget?

[1450]

Hon. T. Lake: Primary care commitments are already being acted upon, and some examples include A GP for Me, which is a key initiative within primary care, in
[ Page 928 ]
which the province has committed to ensuring that every patient who wants a family doctor will have one by 2015. The GP for Me program provides $60.5 million over two years to support patient attachment. Currently, 127 communities are supported by 32 divisions of family practice. These are community-based groups of family physicians who work together to achieve common health care goals.

Also, another example of the innovation in primary care we talked about a little bit this morning — that's the nurse practitioners for British Columbia, the NP for B.C. program. It's been implemented to optimize the use of nurse practitioners with the skills and competencies within the health care system by funding up to 45 new positions per year over three years.

J. Darcy: The 2013 Liberal platform committed to adding 500 addiction spaces provincially. Is this reflected in the budget? What are the projected costs for this commitment over the next several years, and does the government still expect to complete the creation of these spaces by 2017?

It appears — I'd be happy to be corrected — that there was no new funding announced for this item despite the commitment for it and aligning with the ten-year mental health and substance abuse plan.

Hon. T. Lake: The commitment is indeed to create an additional 500 addiction spaces by 2017, four years hence. But of course, time moves very quickly, as we know in government.

The Ministry of Health has made it a priority to build a comprehensive system of mental health and substance use services throughout B.C. Some examples: in 2011-12, we spent about $1.3 billion on mental health and substance use. That's an increase of 58 percent since 2000-2001.

Our ten-year plan to address mental health and substance use in B.C. — Healthy Minds, Healthy People — is a road map to improve mental health in British Columbia and to reduce problematic substance use as well as addressing mental illness for all British Columbians through prevention, early intervention, treatment, harm reduction and sustainability.

The number of community substance-use beds has increased by 196 percent, with 1,715 new beds since 2003. So in ten years we added 1,700 new beds. To add 500 over the next four years would carry on a similar track record.

[1455]

J. Darcy: Part of my question, Minister, was that there does not appear to be any new funding announced for this item in this budget. Is that the case?

Hon. T. Lake: As I said earlier, the health authorities receive increases each and every year. We went through the quantity of that increase earlier in the estimates process. As I mentioned, over the last ten years we have added 1,715 new beds. With the increases to health authorities, that's the funding, in part, which will go to the new beds by 2017.

J. Darcy: Has the minister directed the health authorities to allocate funding in this budget year in order to begin the creation of those additional beds?

Hon. T. Lake: We will work with health authorities and determine the steps needed to reach the target and plan on setting out a rollout, if you like, of the different stages to reach the 500 level. That plan then would go into the government letter of expectations for the health authorities so that they would know what the expectation is in terms of the number additional spaces that would be expected to be added each year.

J. Darcy: I'd like to pursue this further. To date there has been no directive or clear expectation set out for the health authorities to begin, this year, adding new capacity. Is that right?

Hon. T. Lake: This commitment was made in an election platform. Ministry didn't know the outcome of the election. Since the outcome is known now, the plans will start to be made to live up to those platform commitments, but it will take some time to develop those plans.

J. Darcy: Am I correct in assuming that the moneys for these new mental health beds are to be taken from existing funding allocated to the health authorities, who are, as we have already discussed, already struggling with numerous demands that are being placed on them?

Hon. T. Lake: As I answered earlier, these beds are provided by health authorities. They are getting funding increases in each year of the next three years. Despite reducing the increasing costs of health care — we're trying to bend that cost curve down — we have worked diligently to preserve health care funding as much as possible. We will work with the health authorities to ensure that they are capable of meeting this platform commitment.

J. Darcy: Can the minister give an estimated cost for putting those 500 new spaces in place?

[1500]

Hon. T. Lake: The cost of a placement for substance use treatment will vary around the province, depending on location, the type of treatment and the type of service provider, so I don't have a figure in terms of how much 500 additional beds will cost. That will be part of the planning process that the ministry will go through.

Having just come through an election and having a platform commitment that the ministry and the health
[ Page 929 ]
authorities are now expected to perform or to deliver, we will work closely with the health authorities and create a plan moving forward on how those 500 beds will be put in place by 2017.

J. Darcy: I understand that these spaces were committed as part of an election campaign, but surely it is the responsibility of the party that is making those commitments to also cost them. When the government is saying that its budget is balanced and will be balanced, then surely there must have been an estimate made of what those beds would cost.

Hon. T. Lake: We had a little changeover in staff, which is helpful because now I have some information that I think will help answer the question.

As I mentioned, financial implications will be defined in part by the types of additional spaces required. They could range from community out-patient tier 3 services for the moderate to severe population to tier 5 specialized, residential in-patient beds for the severe and complex population.

At the high end of the need — for example, only tier 5 residential treatment beds — those 500 spaces could cost up to $70 million annually. But more likely a range of spaces across the service continuum will be required to meet the diverse needs of the client population served. So $70 million a year would be at the very high end. More likely we'd be lower than that with an array of different needs.

As mentioned earlier, the health authorities are receiving in excess of $300 million increase in each year of the three-year plan.

J. Darcy: I'm still having some difficulty with understanding how a commitment can be made in an election platform without a cost attached.

[1505]

Certainly, I can assure the minister that commitments that were made in the area of health care — in this case, in the platform for people — on this side of the House were very, very carefully costed.

My question to the minister is: does this $70 million, then…? You've talked about the transfers to the health authorities of $300 million. I believe you said earlier that $130 million of that was allocated for pay for performance. You have also indicated that there are costs for the health authorities attached with the collective agreements, which are not funded from the province.

There are pressures of many sorts that we have already discussed this morning. There's population growth. There are many other factors that are contributing to enormous pressure on health authorities. So I would still ask the minister: what is it that he estimates these beds will cost? What is the rollout like?

You're planning on a three-year basis for balanced budgets in each of those years, so surely when that commitment is made, it shouldn't just be one made in the heat of an election campaign. It should be one that has actual figures attached.

Hon. T. Lake: I'll answer the question again, since the question was asked again. These beds, at the very high end, would cost $70 million. It's unlikely it would cost that much, as it would be an array of services that would be required.

While we're on platform commitments, I would just point out that the members opposite are suggesting more money should be spent in this area, more money should be spent in that area. I would point out that the members opposite ran on a platform that advocated for an increase in the health care budget of 15/100 of a percent — so not a lot of difference in terms of the money allocated for health care in both of the platforms.

J. Darcy: While I would be happy to answer questions concerning the official opposition's health care platform, I don't think that's what we're here to do today. I will certainly have some things to say about where we believe efficiencies can be found in the health care system, and I'll be returning to some of those issues later on.

Let me move to another commitment that was made — this time in the throne speech — to "begin work to create the environment for a school of traditional Chinese medicine at a British Columbia post-secondary institution." This was a commitment made in the throne speech. However, there is no mention of this in the ministry's current service plan.

What is the post-secondary institution that the school of Chinese medicine is planned to be created in? What are the expected costs? What work has been done to date? What is the expected timeline for the rollout of this significant project?

[1510]

Hon. T. Lake: I apologize for the delay. That was a commitment in the February throne speech and has been assigned to the Ministry of Advanced Education. I certainly could try to get more information for the member from that ministry and provide it in written form.

J. Darcy: Does that mean it is a project of the Ministry of Advanced Education alone, or is it done in collaboration with the Ministry of Health?

Hon. T. Lake: It is sitting with the Ministry of Advanced Education at the moment. I'm sure there will be conversations with the Ministry of Health. Heretofore being in session and only five weeks into the mandate, those conversations have not yet started.

J. Darcy: I'd like to turn now to the issue of feder-
[ Page 930 ]
al transfer payments. As the minister is, I'm sure, all too aware, there are significant cuts coming to Canada health and social transfer entitlements, with the result that British Columbia will be receiving $435 million less than expected in the 2012 budget from between 2012-13 and 2015-16.

What is the government's position on the federal funding formula that is currently being promoted by the federal government — that is, a change to a solely per-capita-based formula?

Hon. T. Lake: The Canada health transfer actually falls under the auspices of the Minister of Finance. However, I would like to just direct the member to page 23 of the Estimates, the blue book, which shows that the Canada health transfer in 2013-14 is $4.22 billion. It is the same in 2014-15 and then rises to $4.479 billion in 2015-16.

I would direct the member to the Minister of Finance. However, I am sure that the member heard the same thing I heard from the Minister of Finance — that he expressed concern to the federal government regarding the changes. I'm sure that will be the subject of more discussions between the province and the federal government.

J. Darcy: I understand that it is an issue that the Minister of Finance deals with, but I think it's still fair to ask the Minister of Health what other factors he believes should be included in the formula for the Canada health and social transfer.

Hon. T. Lake: The Canada health transfer has two basic components. One is a per-capita transfer. The other is a transfer of tax points, which is a very complicated system that is being eliminated and going on a pure per-capita basis.

[1515]

The argument that British Columbia has made — and will continue to make, I believe, in further discussions with the federal government — is that a pure per-capita allocation does not take into account demographics. As the member is astutely aware of health care policy, she knows that as people age, the cost to provide health care services increases. British Columbia, while not the oldest province across Canada in terms of demographics, certainly has a higher age demographic than some other provinces. We believe that there should be some recognition of that in the formula.

I believe that position has been stated by both the Premier and the Finance Minister, and it's one that we will continue to urge a conversation on.

J. Darcy: Aside from the issue of demographics by age group, which the government has spoken about, are there other socioeconomic factors that he believes, or that the government believes, should be taken into account? As discussed in a meeting with the ministry last week, migrations between regions, gender and various other issues — we understand that the health authorities take into account in their own formulas.

Also, can the minister indicate, as far as demographics by age, how we compare with other provinces?

Hon. T. Lake: I don't have a chart in front of me that compares our age demographic to other provinces in Canada. I do know that we are not the oldest and far from the youngest, as we are a bit of a destination for retirees, which is probably no secret to anyone in the many beautiful areas of this province, including the great city of Kamloops.

The factors that we use in our funding formula to the health authorities may not be applicable across Canada. I think, from my understanding, the federal government is trying to simplify the formula for the Canada health transfer. We believe that they've oversimplified it, and that works against British Columbia.

We are trying to introduce one of the main drivers of health care costs into that formula, that being the age demographic. But that is the only one that I am aware of that we have put forward as a suggestion in terms of changes to the health transfer.

J. Darcy: Can the minister please outline what he expects as the impact of the future cuts to revenue from the Canada health and social transfer? Can you talk about the impact that you believe that will have on the Ministry of Health's budget?

Hon. T. Lake: My understanding…. Again, I put the caveat in that this is a Ministry of Finance issue, but I will give my understanding of the way things are going. The Canada health transfer will be protected at 6 percent, I believe, for one or two more years. Then the change in the formula is to occur, notwithstanding our efforts to influence how that looks.

[1520]

The Canada health transfer doesn't come directly to the Ministry of Health. It goes into the consolidated revenue fund, and then the Minister of Finance, in creating the budget, will decide how much the Ministry of Health gets. So I can't answer the question as to how it will impact our health budget, because that is up to the Minister of Finance in terms of how much money is allocated to our ministry, despite where that money comes from.

J. Darcy: Can the Minister of Health share with us what he knows about where other provinces stand on these changes to the formula?

Hon. T. Lake: I can share what I know, all of which I've heard in the media. I've had no personal discussions. We will be having a federal-provincial conference in October in Toronto, and I'm sure this will be a lively
[ Page 931 ]
topic of debate.

J. Darcy: I'd like to shift now to discussion of capital projects. I want to begin with some commitments. We spoke a few moments ago about commitments made during the election campaign which may not necessarily have been costed yet. There are a number of capital commitments. I'm going to touch on several of them, but I want to begin with Dawson Creek and District Hospital.

The MLA for Peace River South committed $50 million towards an expansion of the Dawson Creek and District Hospital, in April 2013, in a press release during the provincial campaign. He stated that he would achieve this for his constituents during his first term in office.

There is absolutely no mention of this in the current budget and service plan. What progress is the government making to ensure it upholds its commitment to the people of Peace River South, who were led to believe that this project would happen if their current MLA was elected?

Hon. T. Lake: Northern Health Authority has a number of priorities for their capital program. Actually, we'll be going shortly for the sod-turning of the Haida Gwaii–Queen Charlotte hospital. That is one of their number one priorities. The Lakes District Hospital replacement in Burns Lake, the Stuart Lake Hospital replacement in Fort St. James, and I believe that there's some investment, as well, in the B.C. Cancer Agency Centre for the North.

The hospital at Dawson Creek — the member is correct — currently is not on the list of capital projects. This is a three-year capital plan, so we will certainly…. Things change, as some projects sometimes can move forward, if other projects aren't able to be carried out in that time frame. Again, these things are somewhat fluid in terms of capital.

We do go through a process whereby there has to be a proposal put forward, it has to go through a business plan, and then once we have firm numbers, it would go through approval. So there are multi steps in the process. The health authority's priorities are considered as part of that, and certainly, government priorities are considered as part of that as well.

J. Darcy: The minister says that things can be fluid with these commitments. Is the minister saying that there was, in fact, a commitment by government or by the Northern Health Authority to move ahead on this project?

[1525]

Hon. T. Lake: We certainly are committed to the Dawson Creek and District Hospital. In fact, since 2001 we have invested a total of $48.55 million into that hospital. As I mentioned, the capital plan is subject to change on an ongoing basis, depending on the priorities of the health authority and priorities of government. But we have made significant investments and remain committed to the Dawson Creek and District Hospital.

J. Darcy: I have to say that the minister's answers are a little bit confusing, because there either was a commitment or there wasn't. Or there was a commitment, and that commitment has since changed. The fact is that in May 2013 the Ministry of Health and Northern Health refused to confirm the $50 million commitment by the MLA for Peace River South.

Northern Health has since stated that as a result of an earlier master planning program, it's waiting for surveyors to determine the costs of a potential plan for the hospital. It's far too early, they've said, to say whether the cost would be $50 million or not and whether it would be built or not.

Was the announcement by the MLA for Peace River South during the election made purely for political purposes without any actual funds being committed?

Hon. T. Lake: I would say to the member that most things during an election campaign are for political purposes. It's evident that the member has indicated a commitment to Dawson Creek and District Hospital, that he committed to his best efforts to support that hospital.

This is not a government commitment. This is, from what I understand, a commitment on behalf of the MLA to work towards investments in the Dawson Creek and District Hospital. As I mentioned, in the last 12 years those total over $48 million.

J. Darcy: I would suggest that the Minister of Health check the record. What the MLA for Peace River South said was: "I will achieve this during my first term of office." Not "I will work towards…." Not "I will attempt to…." "I will achieve this during my first term of office."

I will grant you that things said during election campaigns are often for political purposes. But commitments of $50 million for a project that does not appear in any plan since then — in the budget, in the service plan, in the capital commitments — would appear to be a promise made during an election campaign — one thing said during an election campaign and something different afterwards.

Hon. T. Lake: The member from Dawson Creek apparently committed to delivering his best efforts in his first term, and we'll see what happens over the next four years. This is not a government commitment. The member opposite knows that government is composed of the Premier and the executive council.

Typically, during an election a platform is put forth by a party. During a campaign it is not unusual for members running to talk about what they hope to accomplish in their term. I believe that this member, in good faith, com-
[ Page 932 ]
mitted to working as hard as possible in his first term to seek further investments in this hospital.

J. Darcy: I can certainly assure the minister that as a candidate in New Westminster — and I can certainly speak on behalf of other candidates running for office — there was no such leeway for local candidates to be able to make capital commitments that were not carefully costed and that were not part of a platform of the political party.

[1530]

Let me move on to Penticton Hospital, if I can. Penticton Hospital is mentioned in the Health service plan, but only insofar as business case planning. Can the minister please indicate whether the $2 million previously announced for the project planning remains at $2 million and when the business case is expected to be completed?

Hon. T. Lake: This government is committed to a new patient tower at Penticton Hospital. We've made that clear. A business plan is being developed. Typically, business plans are in the range of $2 million. We do expect to have that business plan in early 2014. The business plan will tell us essentially what the scope of the project would be and the estimated cost of the project.

J. Darcy: The fact is the Premier herself made a commitment to the people of Penticton on March 30 of this year, just prior to the provincial election, stating very clearly that the hospital will be built. "We are going to identify the money, we are going to put it aside, and we are going to guarantee this hospital gets built."

Can the minister please tell us the estimated date for completion of construction of this much-needed hospital in Penticton?

Hon. T. Lake: The answer is no, because we go through a multistage process, as I had mentioned before. There has to be an agreement in principle, in this case a commitment to a new patient tower at Penticton Hospital. That is a commitment made by this government. Then a business plan is developed, and that business plan will then quantify the scope and the cost estimate of the hospital.

Then it would go through a planning process, a master site-development plan, for example, and fully costed, at which point in time it would go through the regular Treasury Board approval and then be put on the capital plan.

Unlike previous governments, if this government says it will build a hospital, it builds a hospital — over $8 billion in hospital construction since 2001. We are committed to a new tower at Penticton Hospital, and it will be delivered.

The Chair: The member for Juan de Fuca would like to have leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

Statements

WITHDRAWAL OF COMMENTS

J. Horgan: Today in question period with respect to the credit card or the purchasing card for the Premier's office, I used the following data: 1,310 transactions worth $475,000. That information was incorrect. The correct information for this year is 1,158 transactions for $402,000. I apologize if anyone moved incorrectly on that $75,000 indiscretion.

[1535]

Debate Continued

J. Darcy: My next question pertains to Royal Columbian Hospital in New Westminster. As the minister will be aware, Royal Columbian Hospital plays a critical role in Fraser Health and provides the highest level of trauma care in the province. Royal Columbian Hospital is mentioned in the service plan, but there are no related financial commitments that are presented in the three-year budget and fiscal plan.

Can the minister please advise: what is the status of the business-case planning? Fraser Health has indicated that this stage is expected to be completed sometime in 2013-14. Does the minister have a more precise timeline?

Hon. T. Lake: The Royal Columbian Hospital, of course, is a very important health care centre and is the Fraser Health Authority's top capital priority. In June of 2012 the Minister of Health announced the formal start of work on the redevelopment of RCH. A concept plan was submitted to government for approval in March of 2013. In April we announced the business plan for the first phase of redevelopment. It is proceeding. The final scope, cost and schedule will be determined as part of that business plan. That business plan is expected to be complete over 2013-14. Following approval of the business plan, procurement for construction of the first phase of the project will commence. This is a multiphase project, as is not uncommon.

Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops is undergoing a similar multiphased redevelopment. The redevelopment would occur in the phases of a new acute care tower to house a new emergency department, a new combined surgical and interventional suite, consolidation of critical care beds, and six in-patient floors. Then a new purpose-built mental health facility, followed by renovations to
[ Page 933 ]
Columbia Tower, and then renovations to the health care centre to renovate and expand support services, including the lab and the pharmacy.

It's expected that this project will total about $700 million. It is included in the ministry's ten-year capital plan, but of course, as each of the phases goes through a business plan and procurement, then those numbers become more fixed.

J. Darcy: Certainly, this is a very, very high priority for Fraser Health. I'm glad to hear that for the people of New Westminster. There is enormous stress on our local hospital, which is also a critical regional facility. But I have to say that my constituents also become deeply concerned when, just as we talked about with some earlier capital projects, figures are thrown around or commitments are made for political purposes.

I need to advise the minister that in the recent election campaign, Hector Bremner, the unsuccessful Liberal candidate for New Westminster and now the executive assistant to the Minister of Multiculturalism and International Trade, committed over $700 million to expand and modernize the Royal Columbian Hospital.

The Liberal Party backed that commitment, and in fact, it still appears on a website that was sanctioned by the Liberal Party. The minister says that this is part of a ten-year plan and that the capital expenses have not yet been approved and we're in the business-case planning process.

Can the minister please clarify: has this government committed to $700 million for that project? And if so, when will that spending take place?

Hon. T. Lake: I might remind the member opposite of a candidate in the Interior who committed to a moratorium on natural gas extraction, which apparently was not part of the commitments of the party itself.

[1540]

However, I outlined for the member the business plan development, the multiphased redevelopment of the hospital. Each phase will have a separate business plan which will delineate in a more precise way the actual cost of each of the phases. There is a notional budget of $700 million that is included in the ministry's ten-year capital plan.

J. Darcy: Can the minister please outline how that money is allocated over that ten-year period?

Hon. T. Lake: Sorry, if I'm not being clear. No, I can't tell you how that money will be allocated over the phasing, because each phase will come with a business plan which will include the more specific costs of each of the phases. At that point, we'll have a much better idea of the costing.

This is the way these complex redevelopments occur. They don't all occur at once, as you can imagine. You have the health care facility that is being used. It has to continue to be open, so you cannot redevelop the whole project at once. It has to be done in phases. Each of the phases will be costed separately and will go through the normal approval process.

We have set aside a notional amount of $700 million in the ten-year capital plan.

J. Darcy: If we could turn to Royal Inland Hospital, can the minister outline the total capital costs for the construction of the Royal Inland Hospital clinical services building expected by the province? The master plan of Royal Inland Hospital, as I'm sure you are very intimately aware, was completed in June 2011. Why has it taken over two years for this government to act on needed construction?

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you to the member for giving me an opportunity to talk about wonderful Royal Inland Hospital, which just celebrated 100 years of service to Kamloops and the region.

The Interior Health Authority completed a master site plan which would guide the redevelopment of Royal Inland Hospital over the next five, ten and 15 years. Surgical capacity and in-patient unit expansion, ambulatory care and site access are identified as key components of the master site plan.

Phase 1, the clinical services building, was approved by government in April 2013 and is currently in procurement. It is estimated to cost, I believe, $79 million. That is cost-shared with the regional health board, the Thompson-Nicola regional board. As I mentioned, it's going out to procurement.

The member should know that significant investments have been made in Royal Inland. I've been happy to have attended many of those openings of the $80 million that has been invested over the last five to six years.

These include the medical device reprocessing; the central sterilization unit, which I believe was about $11 million; the upgrades to the heliport, which were badly needed and now provide helicopter ambulance service to many residents of the region; the intensive care unit renovations, which are a remarkable addition to the hospital, which was $11 million; a second CT scanner suite for $3 million; an electrical upgrade of $4 million; a new cancer clinic, $2.4 million; and the second floor redevelopment, which occurred in 2006 for $27 million.

J. Darcy: As the minister is also no doubt aware, Royal Inland Hospital has had some very serious overcapacity problems, especially really hitting a peak in April 2013, with patients placed in staff lounges, 22 surgeries cancelled in one day. On some days it has been reported operating at 132 percent capacity.

Understanding that expansions will take some time in the short term, what steps have been taken, since this crisis in April and what continues to be a crisis, to ad-
[ Page 934 ]
dress the very serious health concern for the people of Kamloops and surrounding areas?

[1545]

Hon. T. Lake: This is an opportunity for me to say thank you to the remarkable health care professionals at Royal Inland Hospital — the doctors, the nurses, the allied health team — that have performed remarkably well, given the capacity challenges. The emergency room, particularly, has had flow problems associated with increased access, as well as flow concerns.

I have met with the vice-president of tertiary services for Interior Health, and she, along with the administrator of the hospital, Marg Brown, have done a remarkable amount of work with architects and, in fact, have found some space in the old ICU. As I mentioned, we redeveloped the ICU to the tune of $11 million, and the old ICU will now be redeveloped in the short term to allow space to take some of that pressure off.

We all know that the last place we want people to go, really, is to have to go to acute care. Other parts of that puzzle, I think, are increasing the primary care services that are available in the region. I know the division of family practice is working hard on that, as well as the community vice-president of Interior Health. In fact, I had a meeting with him last Friday to discuss just that and listen to some of the plans.

We do recognize the acute shortage of space and capacity issues. Those are being addressed while the redevelopment is taking place, along with changes in the community primary care system, which we hope will provide relief as well.

J. Darcy: Regarding the Burnaby Hospital, the B.C. Liberal 2013 platform notes that Burnaby Hospital redevelopment is "underway or in progress." However, neither the February nor the June 2013 service plans or budgets make mention of this supposed redevelopment. Can the minister please outline the status of this redevelopment?

Hon. T. Lake: Just to mention, since 2001 $26 million in capital investments have been made at Burnaby Hospital, but we recognize the need for further investments. In February of this past year Fraser Health Authority completed the Burnaby Hospital high-level master plan, which outlines a ten-year plan to guide decision-making for clinical services and the physical expansion and improvement of the hospital.

As mentioned when we've talked about other projects, these redevelopments at existing facilities are a phased approach and do take some time, up to ten years in some cases, to complete the redevelopment. The first step in that is a business plan on each of the phases. My understanding is that that business plan for the first phase of redevelopment for Burnaby Hospital has yet to be developed.

J. Darcy: I'm sure that the member from Burnaby–Deer Lake will have more questions about this particular issue when she joins us later on, but it would appear that this is another case of a commitment made during an election campaign that is not reflected in service plans, capital projects or whatever.

Can the minister please explain what the difference is between what he refers to as a high-level plan at Fraser Health and a business plan?

[1550]

Hon. T. Lake: The high-level master plan is, as it sounds, a high-level look at the core areas of the hospital that need to be redeveloped, but it doesn't go into the detail of the actual cost of each of those phases. A business plan is developed for each of the phases, which will bring those costs into a more finite form.

The high-level plan did, however, recognize some immediate physical improvements that were necessary, including areas of the emergency department, the endoscopy area and the sterile processing department. Those are underway now, and they're estimated to cost $5½ million.

The sustainment and redevelopment of the different phases on a high level are estimated to be $520 million. Again, with other projects we've talked about, there's a notional figure out there, but further refinement is necessary. The total project, with the $5.5 million, is estimated to be $525 million. As each of the phases is determined through a business plan, they are added to the shorter-term capital plan.

J. Darcy: With the greatest of respect to the minister, the concepts that you're talking about are not ones that make sense to voters in our constituencies, to people who are very keen to see their hospital redeveloped.

How can it be that in the Liberal platform for 2013 it says the Burnaby Hospital redevelopment is underway or in progress, and yet there is not even a business case or a budget for a business case that has been announced by the minister? Has any money been allocated towards the needs for capital funding to redevelop and upgrade the Burnaby Hospital?

Hon. T. Lake: With the greatest respect, perhaps the member didn't hear that I said: "Immediate physical improvements are underway now to the emergency department, the endoscopy area and the processing area." That is estimated to cost $5.5 million, with a generous $476,000 funded by the hospital foundation.

J. Darcy: Can the minister, then, explain why this does not appear in any way in the service plans or in the capital plans?
[ Page 935 ]

Hon. T. Lake: The $5½ million is, in fact, in the capital plan. Those are underway now. The other phases have yet to be refined in terms of costs, and until that happens, they are not included in the capital plan.

This is a similar situation, as I described, to Royal Inland Hospital, where phase 1 is estimated to be $79 million. It's in the capital plan. We have an estimate for the other phases, which would be a grand total of around $400 million, but again, until they are further refined, they aren't put into the short-term capital plan.

J. Darcy: Thank you to the minister. I'm sure that the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake will be returning to this issue. The member for Vancouver–West End has a question that he would like to ask regarding the redevelopment of St. Paul's Hospital.

S. Chandra Herbert: My constituents have certainly watched the proposed redevelopment of St. Paul's for many years. There was a Treasury Board submission at one point, back in the early part, maybe 2003-2004, to have it taken out of the neighbourhood. Thankfully, community opposition to losing our hospital was heard by the government, and in 2010 a commitment was made to keep St. Paul's in the West End after repeated questioning from a few members.

[1555]

Now, in 2011 a concept plan had been prepared. In 2012 the government announced the creation of a concept plan, which really was a revision of a concept plan which had been existing, and now with a commitment that that would go to Treasury Board this summer for approval of a business case this fall.

My understanding is that a meeting which had been scheduled for July was cancelled, for the presentation of the concept plan. I'm just curious when that concept plan will be going to Treasury Board and when a business case will be approved for the redevelopment of St. Paul's Hospital.

Hon. T. Lake: St. Paul's is indeed a critical institution for the entire province. In fact, both of my parents have had heart surgery there, so I owe them a great debt of gratitude.

The member is not correct in saying that the business plan was to come to Treasury Board or to the ministry this summer. In fact, the ministry is still working with Providence and St. Paul's and Vancouver Coastal to refine the concept plan in terms of scope, capital costs and phasing.

The next step will be for St. Paul's to submit a refined concept plan for government to review. Then after the concept plan approval, they'll produce a detailed business case to procure and implement each of the phases. We do not expect that to happen. The business plan itself is likely not to come until early 2014.

S. Chandra Herbert: There is a bit of a gap in this House, so maybe the minister misheard me. I didn't say the business case was complete; I said the concept plan was complete. My question was…. That concept plan was supposed to be in the plans going to Treasury Board this summer for approval. Potentially, it's early this fall for approval. Then there could be one year of work done on a business case for approval in 2014.

I'm just curious if and when Treasury Board will be meeting to approve the concept plan, because my understanding is that the concept plan was completed. They went through and did some more work at the minister's and the Premier's request. That work has now been completed.

I'm curious when we can actually get to the business case. Many hospitals in British Columbia have not had to go through the concept plan phase. They've just gone straight to business case. But for some reason, St. Paul's has had to do this two-step process of concept plan, then business case. I would like to know when the business case phase will start.

Hon. T. Lake: This is a complex site, obviously. It's over 100 years old, in the middle of a very dense area of the city of Vancouver, and is probably a little — well, a lot — more complicated a redevelopment than other sites would prove to be.

The concept plan came forward, but working with the ministry, it was understood that further refinements to the concept plan were needed before progressing through the approval process and through to Treasury Board. I don't have a date for when that may happen. St. Paul's and Vancouver Coastal are still working on that concept plan. We will continue to work with them.

I have heard of some very innovative suggestions on how that concept plan may develop in terms of utilizing that space for different purposes, if you like — some of which could, perhaps, help fund the redevelopment.

[1600]

This is, again, why this is a complex project. It is high-value land, and the possibilities for redevelopment are probably a little different than would be in other areas. So we'll continue to work with Vancouver Coastal Health and St. Paul's on the concept plan, but I beg the member's indulgence that I can't give him a date when that would come forward.

J. Darcy: We will return to some other questions regarding capital projects, but there are a number of areas where other members have questions that they want to ask. Rather than jumping around, I think we'll return to them as a group.

I had indicated that one of the areas we wanted to move on to discuss was the area of wait-lists, so we'll move on to that now. I don't know if that means you need a change of shift.
[ Page 936 ]

The issue of wait-lists for surgeries and various diagnostic procedures continues to be a big problem for British Columbians. The revised service plan for the ministry for 2013-14 to 2014-15 states: "In the last several years British Columbia's health system has successfully reduced wait times for many surgeries."

My first question is: are these procedures that are referred to the ones that were originally identified in the 2004 health accord? There were five priorities that were identified, those being radiation therapy for cancer, heart bypass surgery, joint replacement, cataract surgery and diagnostic imaging. I know that those were ones identified for action across the country. That's my first question.

[1605]

Hon. T. Lake: Following the Romanow commission, there was a commitment made among federal-provincial ministers for a ten-year plan to strengthen health care. First ministers committed to improving access and reducing wait times in key priority areas. Those included hip joint replacement surgeries.

The target for hip joint replacement surgery was not more than 10 percent waiting greater than 26 weeks. Sorry, let me explain that better. The target was to have no more than 10 percent waiting greater than 26 weeks for hip joint replacement surgery. The target, as of April 2013, throughout B.C. was 14 percent waiting greater than 26 weeks, so it did not hit the 10 percent that we were aiming for.

Knee joint replacement surgery — the target was no more than 10 percent waiting 26 weeks. Across British Columbia we had an average of 18 percent waiting greater than 26 weeks.

Cataract eye surgery — not more than 10 percent waiting 16 weeks. We had an average — and it does vary from health authority to health authority — across British Columbia of 26 percent.

The screening mammography — 70 percent of women aged 50 to 69 every two years. As of March 31, 2013, we hit 53 percent across the province, so short of the target.

Fixation of hip fractures — not less than 95 percent waiting less than 48 hours. We were at 89 percent, so fairly close to the marks.

Having said that, these were pretty ambitious targets. We have reduced median wait times in key areas between 2001 and 2011-12. Hip replacements, for instance, went from a median wait time of 18.7 weeks to 14.9 weeks. Knee replacements went from a median wait time of 25.4 weeks to 17.6 weeks, and open heart made the greatest progress there and went from a median wait time of 15.1 weeks to 3.9 weeks.

J. Darcy: I know that this stuff can get pretty detailed. I'm interested. Would you be able to share the information on what the targets were for wait times in each area and by what percentage they have been reduced? Both in those areas…. Most of those, I believe, were identified in the action plan flowing from the 2004 health accord, but I believe you've indicated that there were others that were set as priorities since then with clear targets. So if you can provide that information to us, rather than me asking it of you verbally and going through them one by one.

Okay, that skips over my first two questions.

There are a number of other areas — I believe they were not in the ones that you mentioned — for which the Wait Time Alliance of Canada seems to have stats for certain other jurisdictions but doesn't have statistics for British Columbia. Having looked very carefully at the reports of the Wait Time Alliance from 2011, 2012 and 2013 — unless there has been more recent information — there are certain areas that were not covered. As I said, there are stats reporting out from other provinces, but not for British Columbia.

Those areas included diagnostic imaging, treatment for pain related to nerve damage or disc problems and treatments for gastrointestinal cancer. There were other areas, but these are all areas where, certainly anecdotally, we know that there are unacceptably long wait-lists in the province.

Can the minister confirm that we are…? Well, I guess my question is…. They are being tracked in other provinces. Are they being tracked in British Columbia? If not, why not?

[1610]

Are there goals and plans in place to reduce wait times for these procedures? If there are, how can British Columbians access them?

Hon. T. Lake: I would have to commit to getting back to the member on disc surgery wait times and GI cancer surgery wait times. We don't have that information readily available.

In terms of diagnostic imaging, we have, in fact, made great strides on that front. Let me just give the member some numbers here, and try not to overwhelm us all with these, because it breaks it down by health authority. I'll just go through British Columbia.

In 2001-2002 there were 37,354 MRIs performed in the province. In 2012-13 that number increased by 239 percent to 126,626. In terms of CT scans, 240,123 were performed in 2001-2002 in the province. In 2012-2013, 546,884 CT exams were performed, for a 128 percent increase. On a per-thousand population, we now perform 27.4 MRIs per 1,000 population in British Columbia and 118.3 CT scans per 1,000 people in the province of British Columbia.

J. Darcy: I mentioned three areas, and you have spoken on diagnostic imaging. Do we, in fact, track the wait times for treatment for pain related to nerve damage or disc problems — a huge problem for people in this province — or treatment for gastrointestinal can-
[ Page 937 ]
cer? I was, frankly, puzzled to look at the reports of the Wait Time Alliance and see that there was no reporting out in those areas.

Hon. T. Lake: The B.C. Cancer Agency may have the data on the GI cancer wait times. We will certainly try to access that information for the member. In terms of disc disease and surgery related to spinal disc disease, we do not track that data.

J. Darcy: I'd like to explore an issue of a somewhat broader definition of wait times.

[1615]

The reality is that many patients wait as long as a year in order to see certain specialists like back surgeons, for instance, before they are even considered for surgery, much less placed on a wait-list for surgery or other treatments. And so the total wait time for patients to receive treatment would appear to be a more accurate measure, certainly from a patient's perspective.

The issue is not exclusively how long between when I see a back specialist and when I'm placed on a wait-list — how long that takes. If it takes a year to see a back specialist, then we're talking about a considerably longer period of time.

Does the ministry track wait-lists for patients to see specialists? And if not, why not?

Hon. T. Lake: The member has identified an area that I think is a significant concern for many people, not just in British Columbia but in health care systems around the world. As I continue my reading on the challenges of managing a health care system, it's clear that wait times, whether it's from the primary care practitioner through the specialist or the specialist to the actual treatment, can be a challenge in many jurisdictions.

We don't track the wait time between a GP's visit and the specialist visit. The reason that that is difficult to do is because not all GPs are on an electronic medical records system. But we do recognize that this is very important.

I can tell the member that 15 years ago in veterinary practice we had electronic medical records. But the human health care system is a very large beast to conform over to electronic medical records. And of course privacy issues, data management are some of the complexities involved in doing that.

Having said that, British Columbia is committed to transforming the health care system over to electronic medical records, and there are some very good examples of that happening in B.C.

J. Darcy: I was wondering how long it would take before the minister referred to his particular professional practice as we discussed health care procedures in this province.

I'm not surprised that your response to the question speaks to the issue or the challenge we have with electronic records. My understanding is also that while physicians are moving forward in using electronic records…. In fact, in the Lower Mainland, at least, they are using several different types of medical records. I believe the physicians and Northern Health….

There are significant steps being taken towards physicians and the health authority using the same electronic health records system in order to facilitate all kinds of things, including to potentially be able to track this kind of thing in greater detail with better outcomes for patients.

Just while we're on this particular question, can you speak to that issue about the different types of health records systems being used by different groups of physicians and whether there are in fact plans in place or whether the ministry can show leadership in bringing about common programs in order to serve the needs of British Columbians better?

[1620]

Hon. T. Lake: The Ministry of Health service plan does contain targets for community physician adoption of EMRs. It's based on the number of general practitioner and specialist physicians that are registered and active in a program administered by the Physician Information Technology Office, which is, I believe, from the B.C. Medical Association.

The target published in our service plan for '12-13 was 65 percent, and at the end of that the actual adoption rate was 71 percent. So doctors are coming on board faster, and 3,547 out of 5,000 eligible community physicians were active in the program.

We recognize that electronic medical records are a key part of our goal to create a longitudinal electronic health record for every British Columbian. We are currently enabling integration between physician electronic medical record systems and provincial health systems, such as the client registry, the provider registry, PharmaNet and Provincial Laboratory Information Solution. Health authorities are also engaged at multiple levels in the initiative and have representation on the Physician Information Technology Office steering committee that I referred to earlier.

We talked earlier about Vancouver Coastal Health and the $72 million that was moved from capital to a transformation project. That is exactly to the member's point about the clinical and systems transformation. It's trying to ensure high-quality care for over a million British Columbian patient visits through Providence Health Care, which is part of Vancouver Coastal Health and the Provincial Health Services Authority. They're going to create one clinical record for patients in those core health service organizations in B.C.

We have, as you can see here, a provincial mandate to try to create these longitudinal records. We have health
[ Page 938 ]
authority mandates to come together and integrate systems from the physician's office into key databases that the health authorities use. There are also plans in place and programs being developed to integrate different health authorities. There are two major systems that health authorities use, and we need to make sure that those can talk to each other.

[1625]

J. Darcy: Can the minister speak to what system is used to track wait-lists in emergency rooms? Does the tracking system look, for instance, at what happens to a patient after they leave the emergency room? I've heard you speak and I've heard ministry officials speak about pay for performance and various other incentives to reduce wait times in emergency and reduce the length of time that it takes for someone to move through emergency.

But a big question remains. After they have moved through emergency, what happens? Are they admitted to a hospital bed? Do they reside on stretchers in hallways on wards?

The most extreme case, of course, is one that made national headlines, which was at Royal Columbian Hospital. It made national headlines because they used the Tim Hortons, although the staff there can tell you that it was a daily, almost weekly, occurrence. It was just more controversial that they used Tim Hortons. But routinely, in many of our acute care hospitals people may go through emergency, but they end up in hallways on hospital wards.

We're interested to know whether or not…. First of all, do we track wait-lists across the province, and do we track what happens with patients after they have been in emergency? Do they get admitted to a hospital bed? Are they discharged with a care plan, with a case manager on a care plan for home nursing and home support and so on? Surely, we need to look at the other steps down the road if we are going to ensure that people are not just treated in emergency, but there is a follow-through plan that is appropriate to their needs.

Hon. T. Lake: All wait-lists, in terms of time from triage to admission in the ER, are tracked by each individual hospital facility. Then, of course, the disposition of the patient would depend on the assessment by the physicians. Again, the health authorities and the hospitals keep track of the disposition of the patients. One of the targets we talked about earlier this morning was ensuring that the vast majority of people are admitted into ER within ten hours of being triaged. Each facility will track that metric.

J. Darcy: I'd like to speak to an issue very related to wait times. That is the issue of alternate-level-of-care beds.

I've referred previously to reports of the national Wait Time Alliance. In its 2011, 2012 and 2013 reports it identifies alternate-level-of-care beds — beds that are occupied by patients who could more appropriately be cared for in another setting, other than an acute care hospital — as a major factor that affects patients' timely access to care in several different ways.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

There are no beds for patients in emergency who need to be admitted to hospital because of the number of people taking up beds in acute care hospitals who are, in fact, alternate-level-of-care, who require home support or residential care. There is also a lack of available beds for scheduled surgeries. Those are also affected by the high rates of alternate-level-of-care stays, which leads to cancellation of surgeries and, in turn, longer wait-lists for surgeries.

[1630]

A high number of ALC beds, alternate-level-of-care beds, can also contribute to longer waits for surgeries that require an ICU bed.

Finally, when the objective of government is to bend the health care cost curve downwards, of great concern, surely, is that acute care beds cost, depending on who you talk to, as little as $900 or $1,000 and as much as $1,600 or $1,800, whereas residential care beds cost about $200 a day, and home support costs considerably less. Surely there are major savings that could be achieved if patients are receiving care in the most appropriate setting, and those savings can then be freed up and invested elsewhere in our health care system.

Does the Ministry of Health at present track the number of alternate-level-of-care beds health authority by health authority and facility by facility?

Hon. T. Lake: Each hospital tracks the ALC beds. The member has rightly identified one of the flow problems that we talked about earlier this morning, where people are lying in hospitals when they could be at home. Some of the programs that we have initiated to help that are the Home is Best program, where assistance can be provided at home; the BreatheWell program, where respiratory therapists assist people to manage their pulmonary disease.

Each facility tracks the alternate-level-of-care beds, so I'll give you some examples. For instance, at the Abbotsford Regional Hospital and Cancer Centre the ALC rate was 10.6 percent and has decreased down to 9.1 percent. If we look at Peace Arch district hospital in White Rock, I believe it has decreased from 20.2 percent to 10.6 percent. The point is that each facility tracks the ALC beds, and there are a number of strategies, as I mentioned, to try to reduce that.

In the Royal Inland Hospital, for instance, part of the
[ Page 939 ]
Ponderosa Lodge, which was an older-style residential care home, was redeveloped to allow the decanting of ALC patients to make room for more acute patients in the hospital.

This, again, is one of the challenges that we face. One of the key strategies, of course, is construction of more long-term residential care beds. Since 2001 we have committed to and, in fact, constructed 5,000 additional long-term residential care and assisted-living positions throughout the province.

I am looking forward to the grand opening of the Brocklehurst Gemstone manor in my own constituency of North Kamloops in a couple of weeks. The opening of that facility, which I believe has 125 publicly funded spaces, has virtually eliminated wait times for long-term residential care spaces in the city of Kamloops.

With that, hon. Chair, I wonder if I could beg the indulgence of the committee to have a comfort break.

The Chair: The committee will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:34 p.m. to 4:40 p.m.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

J. Darcy: I just have one more question, and then our critic for seniors will continue. We'll return to this issue and others at another time.

I want to just come back to the issue of alternate-level-of-care beds. The minister has pulled a few examples that show some progress. I don't know how recent those examples are and within what time frame those changes have occurred. But if we look over the last number of years, over a five-year period leading up to 2010-2011, in that time period we actually see an increase of 35 percent in the number of alternate-level-of-care beds.

The Ombudsperson, among other people…. The Ombudsperson's report was highly critical of health authorities and of the ministry for not having regular and systematic public reporting of the number of alternate-level-of-care beds.

So my question, again, to the minister is: do we have a system of public reporting of the number of alternate-level-of-care beds? If not, why not?

Hon. T. Lake: This, hot off the presses, is actually our new report, which is a measure of alternate-level-of-care days as a percentage of total in-patient days. For IHA in 2007-08, it was 14 percent; 14 percent in '08-09; 15.5 percent in '09-10; 17 percent in '10-11; 18 percent in 2011-12. So it went from 14 percent to 18 percent over that time period — certainly a bit of an increase there.

Fraser Health went from 10 percent in 2007-08 to 11 percent in '11-12; Vancouver Coastal, from 7 percent to 9 percent; VIHA, from 15 percent to 18 percent; Northern Health, from 22 percent down to 15 percent; and PHSA, from 2 percent down to 1 percent — so an average of 13 percent across the various health authorities.

This information is collected by the ministry. It is not automatically publicly posted. However, it would be, certainly, available through an FOI. Typically, with our new process, several days after an FOI we tend to post it anyway. But we will be having discussions about the reporting of this kind of material, because I think the member correctly points to the need to have the public understand how each of these facilities is performing, how each of the health authorities is performing.

That is our goal, and part of the reason why we want to have a pay-for-performance component of funding is so that health authorities can be held accountable to the public — not that they're not accountable now. I don't mean to imply that at all. But in terms of metrics, in terms of meeting targets, this kind of information is very helpful, and it's transparent. I would certainly like to have a conversation about providing more of this information to the public.

J. Darcy: I appreciate the updated information. But I would ask, again, why as a matter of course, it would not be made public. Certainly, the Ombudsperson's report on seniors care recommended it very, very strongly, and the Ombudsperson made those recommendations for a couple of reasons.

[1645]

First of all, the majority of the patients who are in alternate-level-of-care beds are seniors — frail, elderly, some with dementia — whose needs can be far more effectively met by using other forms of care. Some could benefit from home support. Some should be in residential care. Patients with dementia certainly should not be in acute care hospitals. Patients with mental health issues or addictions — an acute care hospital is not the place for them.

So the Ombudsperson recommended this very, very strongly, both from the perspective of patients, and seniors in particular, and also because it is far, far more costly to have alternate-level-of-care patients in acute care hospitals when they could be treated elsewhere more effectively and more cost efficiently.

So at the risk of repeating myself, I have to ask the minister again: why would that information not be released publicly as a matter of course, as the Ombudsperson of British Columbia recommended?

Hon. T. Lake: I fear that the member and I are rushing to vociferous agreement on this. I've said that I believe this information would be helpful for the public. Again, early in my tenure as Health Minister it's one of the things I would like to have a discussion with the ministry about. I think it's important to have that information out in the public. The member is absolutely correct that is it is far less expensive and more appropriate to have some-
[ Page 940 ]
one in a long-term residential care home, or in their own home with home supports provided, than to be sitting in an acute care bed in a hospital.

K. Conroy: Is it possible, then, just to follow up, to actually get those stats now? Could the ministry share those stats with us?

Hon. T. Lake: I'd be happy to share those.

K. Conroy: Excellent. We're off to a good start then. Thank you.

Interjection.

K. Conroy: That's it. That's all you're sharing.

I'm going to start. I have a number of things that we want to go through with seniors. Do you need to change staff?

First of all, I want to acknowledge the work that the staff do in the Ministry of Health, because they are incredible in helping out the constituency assistants at home in our constituency offices with all of the various work that needs to be done when constituents come to our offices. I know they've certainly been helpful to our office, and I know that they've been helpful to many other offices, too, across the province. So I want to commend them for the work that they do.

I am going to start off with the seniors advocate position, which is something near and dear to my heart — which the minister is probably well aware of. I just want to know what the government's timeline is for actually creating that office — when they feel it's going to be up and running and some other questions that are associated with that.

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you to the member for recognizing the ministry staff. As I mentioned at the outset, we have, I believe, 12,000 employees. Is that…? It's 1,200 employees. It used to be 12,000, but…. No, I'm kidding. It's 1,200 employees — 1,240, as a matter of fact — that do support many areas throughout the province — health authorities and, of course, constituency offices. So I thank the member for recognizing that.

[1650]

We'll be the first jurisdiction in Canada to create an office of the seniors advocate. As the member can imagine, there's a lot of activity required to build a new organization — planning space, IT requirements, support, policy work. Over the last few months — and of course, with the interregnum for the election — some of that has perhaps not been going as quickly as otherwise.

Over the last few months staff have been laying the foundation for the establishment of the office of the seniors advocate to ensure that when we do make an appointment for that position, they will be able to start work right away. In terms of the selection of the seniors advocate itself, we are still in discussion over the design of the appointment process. So we are continuing…. One of the first priorities for me, once we get through the session, is to finalize the decision-making around the selection of the seniors advocate.

K. Conroy: Can the minister please expand a little bit on what he is referring to when he talks about the appointment process? What exactly does that entail?

Hon. T. Lake: The selection of the seniors advocate. Various methods can be used to appoint someone. It could be a direct appointment. We've had some people express an interest in the position of seniors advocate. The other selection process could be a wider search, if you will.

Our Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors, the member for Boundary-Similkameen, and I have had a preliminary discussion. I want to have a more fulsome discussion once we get through our session here so that we can look at the various pros and cons of a selection process. Again, it is a priority for me once we move through the summer session.

K. Conroy: Is that referring to staff that are in-house to the ministry, or is that actually looking at people from outside of government, out in the public, who have expressed interest?

Hon. T. Lake: This would be outside the ministry, not current ministry staff.

K. Conroy: Is there an anticipated….? I'd like to know what the budget is, actually, for the seniors advocate and the staff. How does it break down?

Hon. T. Lake: The notional budget is for $2 million a year for the seniors advocate and the expenses of the office, including staffing, which we project would be in the order of five to seven staff members. Our ministry staff are currently going through that and looking at the supports that would be needed. But the budget notionally sets aside $2 million a year for the office.

[1655]

The seniors advocate, in terms of the compensation, would be at the level of a senior assistant deputy minister.

K. Conroy: So is it actually a line item, then, contained within the Ministry of Health budget?

Hon. T. Lake: There is not a specific line item for the operation of the seniors advocate position. As I mentioned, it's $2 million on a total ministry budget of $16.325 billion. It's a very important position — a relatively small amount of money that needs to be committed.
[ Page 941 ]
So it will come from the global budget for the ministry.

K. Conroy: By saying that it'll come from the general funding, then, through the ministry…. Are other programs, then, going to lose out? This has to come from somewhere. It's not new money added to the ministry. So are programs going to be cut, or what's going to happen? Where is it coming from so that this position can be provided for?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, there is additional money. There is a 2.4 percent increase in the ministry budget from the previous year. We had a discussion earlier about…. When you have a budget that large, typically when you get to the end of the year, it's rare that you have spent all of that money. We know there is a little bit of flex in a $16.3 billion budget, so we feel very confident. It is a priority of our government that we will be able to, through efficiencies and savings in other areas, come up with the $2 million necessary for this office.

K. Conroy: I'm glad to hear that. I think that 2.4 percent increase probably doesn't even begin to cover the staffing increases in a ministry that large, so I'm glad to hear that nothing is going to be sacrificed in order to fund this very important office.

Throughout the discussion, the huge consultation process that was carried out in the past year around this position, people from all across the province asked that this position be independent. When the legislation was introduced in the spring…. It's not an independent position. It actually reports to the minister. It seems a little awkward for that person to be reporting to the very person that they will be investigating and pulling together reports on. So it seems like a bit of an awkward position.

[1700]

I'm wondering if the minister in his wisdom has thought that they might rethink that and have the position report to someone else.

Hon. T. Lake: I mentioned that B.C. will be, in fact, the first jurisdiction in Canada to create an office of the seniors advocate, so we think that's a tremendous accomplishment. I thank the member for her support for the initiative.

The seniors advocate will have considerable independence plus the flexibility to work within government and across sectors to promote positive change for seniors. I think it strikes a balance between the independence needed to review government policies as well as the ability to work with government to effect the needed change.

I would point to the provincial medical officer of health as another position that looks after the interests of the public yet reports up through the minister. His reports are very valuable, and many of the elements of the recommendations are incorporated by the ministry in their future endeavours.

I believe that this is a significant development to look after and protect the interests of seniors in British Columbia, and I feel comfortable and confident that this position will have the independence necessary yet the ability to work with the ministry to effect positive change.

K. Conroy: We also feel really strongly about the position, seeing as we first introduced it in 2007 and again in 2011 and brought the concept to the province of British Columbia. We feel very strongly about it, and we felt strongly about the independence. I guess we will have to wait and see if that bears out.

In light of that, will the ministry, then, be releasing all of the reports that the position actually writes?

Hon. T. Lake: The answer is yes.

K. Conroy: I'm surprised. Thank you. I'll put that in the record, for once. I think what I want to clarify, though, is: will all reports be shared and not have to be accessed through freedom of information?

Hon. T. Lake: Absolutely. In fact, part of the legislation to create this position is that the seniors advocate is to report out publicly.

K. Conroy: The last thing on the advocate's position is that it is a concern that it is taking so long. I mean, I understand the interruptions that have taken place over the last few months, but even in the estimates last May the former Minister of Health said that it was a position they wanted to see in place as soon as possible. Here we are over a year later, and the position still isn't in place. I wanted to clarify a time frame and ask for something concrete as to when the actual position will be implemented and when we can see it up and running.

Hon. T. Lake: It's certainly my desire to have the position filled as soon as possible. We are working behind the scenes to ensure that once the candidate has been selected, they are able to go to work right away. Of course, depending on the candidate, there may be work commitments that they've made to their previous position that have to be taken into account. But I would hope that by the mid-fall we would have the office up and running.

K. Conroy: I do have one more question around this position. In the legislation it said that the position would only deal with systemic issues and not individual issues. In the consultation process that was one of the issues that people raised quite a bit. They wanted it to be able to deal with individual issues too. It was actually something the former Minister of Health said — that he thought that it should be a position that dealt with individual issues — in estimates last year.
[ Page 942 ]

[1705]

I'm wondering, in the discussions around the process of bringing together how the position is going to look and what it's going to entail, if in fact the position will be able to look at individual issues. Quite often it's the individual issues that lead to the ministry understanding or the position understanding what the systemic issues are in the province.

Hon. T. Lake: Certainly I understand that it is individual concerns that, if they are across the system, point to the need for change. But there are a number of organizations that are available to address individual complaints.

Some examples include the patient care quality offices in each health authority, as I'm sure the member is well aware. Her constituency office is working with the patient care quality offices. There's the assisted living registrar, the licensing officers in the health authorities, the senior health care support line, the consumer protection agency of B.C., the seniors abuse and information line and, of course, the Ombudsperson.

The goal of this position is to address systemic problems. We know there may be individual problems that are one-offs, and it may not be appropriate to change the whole system because of a one-off. But this position is to look at if there are a number of those individual problems developing, then perhaps there is a systemic problem. That is what this person would address so that we wouldn't have that happening throughout the province.

I feel, again, very confident this position will be able to address issues that would improve the entire system across British Columbia.

K. Conroy: The minister should know and probably does know that quite often it was seniors issues…. I know from my constituency office, as well as the critic for seniors for a number of years, that it gets to a point where people don't have anywhere else to turn. There have been a number of times where they've gone through all those steps and gone through all the places you've just mentioned, and they've said: "I need somewhere else to go." People have said that's why we need a seniors advocate.

In times that that happens, and it's happened a number of times, not all of those places work. That's just information for the minister to be aware of. We will see how it works out, and we will keep our fingers crossed that it works out well in the future.

I want to delve a little bit into the whole issue around the charge on wheelchairs. We've heard a lot of information back and forth from the government and talked to many people on this issue. I've had people say to me: "What's next? Am I going to get a surcharge on beds that have to have maintenance?" "Can't afford a wheelchair; what's going to happen?" It's a real concern.

I've had letters, as I know the minister has had, from seniors groups all across the province, advocates who are really concerned about where this leads. What kind of a precedent does this set up? I know it's been a policy on the books for a number of years and has never been implemented, or not advertised in the way it was recently. I'm wondering what kind of communication the ministry has had with health authorities since this became an issue in June.

Hon. T. Lake: Thanks for the question. If I can just go back to the comment earlier, I'll get to this question.

The member mentioned that some of the offices I've mentioned in terms of helping with individual complaints may not address the needs of a senior in every case. I think that's something that the seniors advocate actually could monitor, and look at the outcomes.

[1710]

If there is a systemic problem that seniors are having accessing the Ombudsperson and the senior health care support line, they could make recommendations to those organizations to effect change. I think there is some room there for them to improve the system of individual complaint mechanism that's there now.

In terms of the additional fees that are allowed to be charged in residential care facilities, this is an important point, and I think it has been mischaracterized. I think it goes back to the general lack of knowledge that we, as Canadians, have about how the health care system works.

There's a notion in Canada, and we're very proud of our health care system, that everything is funded publicly, when, in fact, only 70 percent of health care across Canada is publicly funded. The other 30 percent is provided privately, whether that's through third-party insurers, through private access to dental care, physiotherapy — all of the different parts of health care. We have this notion as Canadians that everything is somehow included in the public domain.

I give an example to the member, and I'm sure this will come as no surprise. Someone that's living at home…. I'll use my dad as an example. Hopefully he's watching at home and doesn't get mad at me. He's 82 years old and is finding some mobility challenges and decided to buy a walker. He lives in his own apartment, and he paid for his own walker. Now, if my dad were in a long-term residential care facility, those mobility aids would be…. It would be up to him to pay for the mobility aid, in theory.

We found that there was an inconsistency in terms of what health authorities were charging for additional things that were not included in the basic cost of providing room and hospitality services to a patient in long-term residential care.

As the member can imagine, we went from a number of regional smaller health authorities to larger regional health authorities. Over the years the system has evolved. It wasn't a system that was created overnight that would be consistent in every area of the province and in every facility. We had this patchwork of different charges that
[ Page 943 ]
were all allowable, but some were applying it, and some were not.

Last fall we felt it very important to sit down with the health authorities and go through the list of things that were allowed to be charged as extras so that there would be consistency across the province. The caveat being, and all the health authorities agree, that if someone is unable to afford a wheelchair maintenance fee, for example, that it will be waived with the request of the family. We will not leave vulnerable British Columbians without their needs. In fact, as the member knows, we have among the highest residual income left for British Columbians that have to access publicly subsidized long-term residential care facilities.

We, as the Health Ministry, as health authorities, have done a relatively poor job of explaining across British Columbia what is included in terms of long-term residential care in publicly subsidized beds and what is allowed to be charged. We have tried to clarify that. We have met with all of the health authorities to make sure that they are consistent in their messaging so that, above all, patients and families are fully informed of what the charges could possibly be, so that there are no surprises.

K. Conroy: We're going to get into fees later, but we also know that British Columbians have some of the highest fees. Sure, they have 80 percent of their income left over to deal with, but that gets eaten up pretty quickly when we're looking at about $300 and they have drug costs and other issues that they have to pay. But we're going to get into that after.

It's my understanding that Vancouver Coastal, Providence Health Care and Fraser Health Authority are now going to start charging the $25 a month in residential care facilities as of September. Right now the Interior Health Authority is studying this policy issue to determine if they're going to be doing it. So it seems like there's not some consistency between the health authorities. I haven't heard what the other health authorities are doing. I wonder if the minister can update us on that.

[1715]

Hon. T. Lake: Again, just on the topic of inconsistencies, there are three types of long-term residential care homes: those owned and operated by health authorities; those owned and operated by non-profit organizations; and those that are owned and operated by for-profit companies, in which publicly subsidized beds are included.

There has been a patchwork of different charges. In the for-profit beds, for instance, the residents in those facilities have had to purchase their wheelchairs. That's always been the case. It's only the health authorities that have begun to look at a wheelchair maintenance fee. That was always an allowable charge but, again, inconsistently applied. We have made sure that all health authorities and private providers know what is allowable in terms of charges and what is not so that there is more of a consistency.

Again, it's really important that each operator, whether they're not-for-profit, whether they're a health authority or whether they're a for-profit, explain what those charges are to the patients and their families.

Fraser Health Authority has announced their intent to adopt a fee of $25 per month for wheelchair rentals. Vancouver Coastal, I believe, is doing the same. We are talking with the other health authorities in terms of having consistency. The wheelchair rental, for the member's information, is much lower than a typical rental fee range, which is about $70 to $100 a month.

K. Conroy: I didn't get a date, then, of when it was going to be implemented by the ministry — to have some consistency across all of the health authorities.

Hon. T. Lake: As mentioned, Fraser Health has announced that they are implementing the rental fee. The other health authorities will work with the ministry so that we can have a consistent implementation. We expect that to be sometime between October and January.

K. Conroy: How much money does the ministry expect to accrue from this? Like, what is the bottom line on this? Does the money all go back to the facilities, or where does the $25 go?

Hon. T. Lake: The health authorities will collect this money, It doesn't go to the ministry. It is reinvested into maintenance of existing chairs and procurement of new wheelchairs for resident use.

K. Conroy: Is there a dollar figure in the budget for this amount?

Hon. T. Lake: There's no dollar figure in our budget, but the health authorities, each of them, would track the rental and obviously keep track of the reinvestment into the maintenance and procurement of new mobility aids.

K. Conroy: The minister has referred to the fact that a lot of people purchase their wheelchairs. People that tend to live in private facilities tend to be able to afford their own wheelchairs more than the people that are in the public facilities. That's the information I've gotten from the facilities.

Quite often once a family no longer needs the wheelchair, they donate it to the facility, so people are using donated wheelchairs. What is the policy going to be on donated wheelchairs? Would people also have to also pay a fee? I mean, the wheelchair now becomes theirs. Will they still have to pay a fee on that?

[1720]

Hon. T. Lake: I want to clarify that the private long-term residential care facilities do have publicly funded beds in them. If a patient is placed, they may get placed in a health-authority-owned and -operated facility, they may go to a non-profit-owned and -operated facility, or they may be in a for-profit facility.

Again, the amount charged on the publicly subsidized system, if you're a patient that is able to take advantage of the publicly funded system, would be equivalent in each of them.

In the privately run facilities patients have to own their own mobility devices. In the health authorities this fee will be used for maintenance of the wheelchairs. So a wheelchair may be brand-new, purchased by the health authority, or it may be donated. Regardless, these wheelchairs need monthly maintenance, and they certainly need to be cleaned hygienically and disinfected.

Obviously, these aren't sort of a typical hospital wheelchair to go from one place to another. These are chairs that people are using for a large part of the day. They need to be maintained, and they need to be cleaned on a regular basis.

K. Conroy: I think what the minister just said is the exact reason people think: "What's next?" In some facilities, some seniors are either in a bed or a wheelchair, and that's it. Are they going to have to start charging a fee to have the beds cleaned?

I mean, it's a slippery slope that I think people have a reason to be concerned about, especially for those seniors, where the only thing they have going to be mobile is to utilize a wheelchair. Otherwise, they're in their bed all day, and that's it for them.

What's next? That's the concern that's out there around seniors in this province. I mean, there's a deficit budget. What's next? What are people going to charge for next?

I think the minister needs to be aware of that and to respect those letters that are coming to him. People are really concerned about what other fees seniors are going to get charged.

The Ombudsperson, as part of her recommendation, said that there needed to be consistency in fees charged in facilities, and I wonder where the ministry is with that.

Hon. T. Lake: To address the member's comments about what's next, again, I think it's important to understand what the health care system provides. Take two seniors, one of whom is living independently in an apartment and has an income of X amount of dollars, and another senior needs long-term residential care and has the same income of X amount of dollars.

The person living independently requires a wheelchair. The person in the long-term residential care facility requires a wheelchair. We have a notion that we should provide one for the person in long-term residential care but not the person living independently. That's the difference.

That, I think, is where the discussion gets a bit confused. We're saying that long-term residential care is for…. I mean, all of the medical care is, of course, provided by the public system. The fees charged — and there is a very progressive approach to setting fees for publicly funded beds in long-term residential care — are for the accommodation and the hospitality needs of the patient.

The other chargeables. As I mentioned, we make sure that people have a minimum of $325 a month, which is among the highest residual income in Canada for long-term residential care. We recognized that there was an inconsistency, so we have a Home and Community Care Policy Manual. Facilities must comply with this as well as the residential care regulation.

[1725]

What we did was we set down chargeable items in that manual. We've tried, again, to have consultation with health authorities and stakeholders to confirm what those chargeable extras were so that there would be consistency across the province. We are working with the health authorities to implement that in a consistent fashion.

K. Conroy: Is there any data available on that? Is there documentation, a report that we could see, that can be viewed as to what the fees are, what has been working and what has not?

Hon. T. Lake: That information is available on the ministry website.

K. Conroy: I wondered what the ministry has done to ensure that there's a correlation in the increase of fees and the actual increase of service. What kind of studies have been done or what kind of surveys have you done or what kind of stats have been gathered to show that there's an actual increase where the fees have gone up and there's an increase in care that's been provided?

Hon. T. Lake: When the fee changes were announced, I believe two years ago, there was a commitment to reinvest any of the incremental fees into the long-term residential care system. In March 2012 health authorities reported on the first year of implementation. Reinvestments have been made in residential care staffing as well as in education, specialized services and equipment.

Health authorities have reported investments of more than $45 million from the revised rates and from additional funds allocated to quality improvements from health authority budgets. This is something that is monitored on a regular basis and is available publicly.

K. Conroy: Are the actual dollar amounts that have gone to each facility available?

Hon. T. Lake: It is available on the website, and we can
[ Page 945 ]
provide that to the member directly.

K. Conroy: Yes, I'd love to have that provided, because manoeuvring through the website has had its moments.

Also, is there consistency in what each health authority reinvests back into the facilities?

Hon. T. Lake: I mentioned that in March of 2012, after the first year, health authorities reinvested $45 million. It would vary from health authority to health authority depending on the number of publicly funded beds in each health authority, but they are limited to what those reinvestments can go to.

[1730]

They can go to quality improvements. They can go to increased staffing or increased education. For example, increases in direct care staffing after two years of implementation will result in more than 1,000 full-time-equivalent positions by the end of 2012 fiscal. That staffing includes professional and non-professional staff such as nurses, residential care aides, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and social workers.

An example in Fraser Health: 98 percent of the reinvestment went to staffing to bring their levels up, because they realized they were lower than other health authorities.

K. Conroy: The minister, then, can confirm that all of the money raised from those fees has all been reinvested back in facilities in the province?

Hon. T. Lake: Absolutely, and it is closely tracked.

K. Conroy: That's the information that's available on the website that the ministry will be providing? Excellent.

One of the things that was in The Best of Care: Getting It Right…. There were a number of issues, but the ministry came out with a response, a seniors plan, which had a number of things in it. It was much touted that there was now a Minister of State for Seniors, that there was a voice for seniors in this province, and it was a voice that was at the cabinet table. That voice isn't there now, so I'm wondering how that's being dealt with.

Hon. T. Lake: Of course, when a new government comes in, there are certain changes to different ministries. We saw the creation of the new Ministry of Natural Gas. Our government has committed to a balanced budget and fiscal responsibility. So we have a relatively small executive council compared to many across the country.

But seniors are a critical component of my ministry, and I have a Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors, the member for Boundary-Similkameen. She will be given extensive responsibilities on the seniors file to advocate and to involve herself in seniors issues, and she has already started that process. I look forward and am encouraged and confident that she will be able to do a very capable job in that parliamentary secretary position.

K. Conroy: It almost sounded like the decision was made to have a minister responsible for gas and give up a minister of seniors. I don't know what the implications of that are, but I think it's a concern. I mean, there's a lot of gas in this province — and probably in this room sometimes.

There are a considerable number of seniors, and there was concern expressed that seniors felt they finally had a voice at the cabinet table that was their voice and that wasn't part of a multi-billion-dollar budget — that's, of course, the Ministry of Health — but was actually their voice at the table. So seniors have been expressing concern about that.

I want to move to the Ombudsman's report, what the recommendations were and what the ministry's reactions have been — not only the ministry's reaction but also the health authorities' reactions to a number of the issues that were coming out of that report.

Out of the 176 recommendations, there were significant recommendations that were targeted to the ministry. A lot of them haven't been responded to in any kind of formal capacity. We'll go through some of them individually. But I just wonder, in general, what the minister's response is, as a new minister, to the recommendations made by the Ombudsperson.

[1735]

Hon. T. Lake: As the member is well aware, this was an Ombudsman report: The Best of Care: Getting It Right for Seniors in British Columbia. It was released in February of 2012. The report focused on home and community care, home support, assisted living and residential care. The report had 143 findings and 176 recommendations.

With that number of recommendations, what we did in the ministry was to approach it by grouping the recommendations into different themes. We therefore grouped them into six thematic areas, and those covered the majority of the recommendations.

Our seniors action plan that was released has allowed the ministry to proceed to implement a number of those improvements to seniors care in areas that were of concern to seniors and identified by the Ombudsperson. We believe that the seniors action plan is a thorough response to the themes of the recommendations that the Ombudsman has raised.

Through that plan, we have ensured that concerns and complaints are heard and responded to in a timely, respectful and coordinated manner. We've improved administrative fairness and access to information within the context of the current legislative and regulatory framework, ensured consistent and fair delivery of care, and protected vulnerable seniors from abuse and neglect. Of course, we are working on the seniors advocate
[ Page 946 ]
position as well.

K. Conroy: I'm going to go to the action plan, then, as the minister has referred to it, and just some of the concerns and issues that have come up through the action plan.

One of them is protecting those who raise concerns. There was a policy brought into place on safe reporting and whistle-blowing procedures for staff and people in the Ministry of Health. It said that all health authorities should ensure that there is a policy in place to protect staff, that there should be no reprisals against staff who have expressed concerns. I just want to know if this policy is actually in place and being acted upon in all the health authorities.

Hon. T. Lake: A policy directive to health authorities was issued. We're just trying to find the exact date when that was issued, but it was a policy directive to health authorities to ensure that whistle-blowers were protected.

I've just been informed that that was November of 2012.

K. Conroy: Is there actually some sort of procedure in place to ensure that this has been acted on and that there are no repercussions for staff if they are in a position where they are going to go through a process that involves whistle-blowing, so to speak?

[1740]

Hon. T. Lake: After the policy directive was issued, all health authorities have a policy to ensure that whistle-blowers are protected. That is available to all staff members of the health authorities. So if all staff are informed of the policy, then we would expect that if the policy was not being adhered to, there would be a complaint.

K. Conroy: Is this a policy that could be utilized in private facilities that are publicly funded in any way?

Hon. T. Lake: Any contract that health authorities have with a provider, whether it's a non-profit or a for-profit provider, has to meet or exceed the health authority policies.

K. Conroy: So all facilities and all contractors have been apprised of this new policy within the ministry?

Hon. T. Lake: The answer is yes.

K. Conroy: One of the improvements that took place last year was the patient safety learning system, bringing together information onto a website from issues around home support, assisted living and residential care services. It's information around personal cases, individual cases — web-based tools — so that health care providers could learn from issues that happened in the system.

I'm just wanting to know: is there follow-up on this website? Is there any kind of monitoring? If there are issues that come on the website, who's following up with the information that's provided?

[1745]

Hon. T. Lake: The website is the patient safety learning system, which is a tool hosted by the Patient Safety and Quality Council that enables health authorities, then, to track various adverse events, be they very minor, which would be considered a 1, to major, which would be considered a 5. So all the health authorities, obviously, will learn from what is happening elsewhere so that they can avoid those mistakes in the future. It's a very cooperative and collaborative system for improvement.

All 4 and 5 incidents are the ones that have the potential to cause significant harm to the resident. All 4s and 5s must be reported by the health authority to the ministry.

K. Conroy: Then I'm assuming there is follow-up? Does the ministry follow through and deal with those issues and take the outcome of them?

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned, the incidents that would be considered 4s or 5s would be directly reported to the ministry, and then the appropriate ministry officials would work with the health authority to understand the nature of the adverse event and ensure that mitigation measures are put in place to prevent that adverse event from occurring again.

Of course, different incidents would have different types of response. Sometimes there could be an investigation, in tragic cases, by the coroner, for instance, and recommendations would come from that. Obviously, the ministry would follow up with the health authorities to ensure that that doesn't occur in the future.

K. Conroy: One of the commitments on the action plan was on information, and I actually want to commend the ministry staff who put together the document My Voice. It has been out for a while now. It is still…. People come and ask for it in the office, and we're printing it off. I notice now that it can be ordered through Crown Publications, and I'm wondering if people have to pay for that through Crown Publications.

Hon. T. Lake: My Voice educates and helps people in terms of creating advanced directives, and it is available to be downloaded, free of charge. Through the Queen's Printer, there is a very small charge that's applied.

K. Conroy: I guess that's why people are coming into the office to get it printed off, because it's a big document. But it's an excellent document, and people are using it. It bodes well for the ministry.
[ Page 947 ]

One of the other things I just want to give kudos on is the funding through the Alzheimer Society for First Link. That program is an excellent program that's benefiting to people across the province, especially to families and caregivers and people early diagnosed with Alzheimer's and dementia, and getting the information they need.

[1750]

I'm just wondering, now, if you know how many communities that program is being offered in.

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you to the member for recognizing the work of the ministry. I certainly share that view. The First Link program — to connect those diagnosed with Alzheimer's to allow them to understand the disease and understand the services that are available — was created through a one-time $2 million grant and ongoing funding of $1 million a year.

It is available in every health authority. I don't have a list or the number of individual communities in which it's available, but I'm told that it is available in every health authority through the province. We can try to find a list of the various communities and provide that to the member.

K. Conroy: The ministry has done good work on this, but I also was recognizing the Alzheimer Society for the work they've done, because it's been incredible. In a lot of ways, they've done a lot of really good work.

I wanted to acknowledge the work done on the residential care facility booklet, which the ministry has done. The only recommendation I would make is that the printing should be bigger. It's really small, and the demographics you are appealing to, I think, would struggle to read it. It's really small.

Just moving on, one of the things that came up through the Ombudsperson's report and that the action plan is trying to deal with is the issue with the different regulations of facilities covered under the Hospital Act and those covered under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act. I understand that the ministry is developing a plan to standardize these regulations so that there's standardized care for clients in both facilities. I'm just wondering where the ministry is at with these plans.

[1755]

Hon. T. Lake: Historically, facilities that were regulated under the Hospital Act, as the member points out, have had different regulatory protections for residents than those facilities regulated by the Community Care and Assisted Living Act — two different pieces of legislation that were covering the facilities.

To address these differences, the ministry developed a plan to standardize benefits and protections for residential care clients with specific actions. Those were in the form of regulatory changes or policy changes that demonstrated our ongoing commitment to ensure that residential care services are safe, transparent, responsive and accountable.

The plan was released in February of 2013. It includes actions to take immediate steps to ensure the same standards, benefits, active oversight and inspection requirements, including public reporting of inspection reports and complaints processes applied to all publicly subsidized residential care facilities.

K. Conroy: I'm assuming this is being implemented across all health authorities, and I'm just wondering how it's being monitored.

Hon. T. Lake: There are a number of ways that it's monitored, including, as I mentioned, the public reporting of inspection reports, as well as through the licensing system, which is through the provincial health office. This is now more consistent and applies to all facilities in all health authorities throughout British Columbia that are publicly supported.

K. Conroy: During the whole first Ombudsperson's report, the issue of tracking temporary reductions in client rates, hardship clients, in the whole home and community care process — it became obvious there was no tracking process in the ministry. The action plan said it was going to bring in a process so that they could ensure there was tracking across all of the health authorities to track approvals and denials. It started in April, and I'm wondering how the tracking is going and if that information is available anywhere.

Hon. T. Lake: The ministry has established a reporting and monitoring process with health authorities to track approvals and denials for the temporary reduction in client rates.

I'm informed that we had hoped to commence that on April 1. We were a few months behind, and it has started in June. Those approvals and denials are tracked within each health authority and monitored by the ministry.

K. Conroy: Is that information available to anybody?

Hon. T. Lake: We've just implemented this new system, but over time, certainly, that is information that will be made available.

[1800]

K. Conroy: Another of the areas that was going to be up for review was the B.C. care aide registry. There was an action plan just done on that registry alone. I'm just wondering what…. There were a number of plans — mid-, short- and long-term strategies — that were going to be put into place. I'm wondering if the actions are on track, how this plan is going and where the ministry is sitting with it now.
[ Page 948 ]

Hon. T. Lake: On March 19 of this past year the ministry released its review of the B.C. care aide registry. It examined the strength and weaknesses of the current system. We agree with the recommendations and have developed a plan with short-, mid- and long-term strategies that ensure residents, patients and their families and the service providers have the confidence to know the registry is operating as it was intended.

This will include extending the mandate of the registry to include private sector care service providers and employees and reviewing the funding model to ensure it's fair to employees, employers and clients. The review and the ministry's plan are both available on the ministry website in the library publications section.

K. Conroy: Is there any timeline on when this will be implemented with the private sector?

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned, there were short-term, mid-term and long-term actions as part of the plan. Short-term actions have been completed. Mid-term actions are targeted for completion in spring of 2014. We are currently trying to access the information regarding private companies in terms of how this applies. Our understanding is it applies across the board. Where we are with implementation of that we are just trying to verify. If we don't get it in the next few minutes, I certainly commit to providing that to the member at a later time.

K. Conroy: Thank you for that. I'll look forward to that information.

One of the other components of the plan was best practices for dementia care. It was looking at implementing non-pharmacological approaches that can be applied in working in facilities and B.C.'s health care settings with persons with dementia.

[1805]

Actually, a best practices guideline was put in place for managing seniors with behavioural symptoms of dementia. Since those guidelines have been implemented, have they been implemented across all health authorities?

Hon. T. Lake: The issue of dementia is certainly something that we are committed to addressing. There are an estimated 60,000 to 70,000 British Columbians living with dementia. As the member noted, the Ministry of Health released The Provincial Dementia Action Plan in November of 2012. It had three priorities with implementation over the two-year period.

The first was to support prevention and early intervention, and we mentioned the First Link service in combination with the Alzheimer Society of B.C.; ensure quality person-centred dementia care; and strengthen system capacity and accountability.

We also released the Best Practice Guidelines for Accommodating and Managing Behavioural and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia, which includes an Interior Health Authority algorithm which is designed to support clinical assessment and care decisions for persons with dementia. The algorithm is being adapted by the ministry and health authorities for provincewide use.

I'd like to mention that also being used in Interior Health and what will be rolled out throughout British Columbia is the PIECES program. This is, I believe, a model developed in Ontario. We've signed a three-year licence for use of their residential care dementia education program. That's to be used with clients with complex physical and cognitive needs and behaviours.

My understanding is that a geriatric psychiatrist would work with social workers and residential care staff to help manage those complex dementia patients and, of course, assess the appropriate approach. In many cases it would be a non-pharmacological approach to managing those complex patients.

K. Conroy: That sounds good, but the reality in the province is that there are still a lot of antipsychotic drugs being used in facilities across the province.

I think one of the concerns I found was through the Fraser Health Authority cutting back funding to a facility in Delta, the Delta View Habilitation, where they actually used more hands-on hugs as opposed to drugs to work with their dementia patients in their special care unit. The funding was cut back, so they couldn't provide that level of care.

I spoke about it the other day, about a senior who was doing quite well in this facility and actually had a fairly decent quality of life. He ended up in acute care, where they didn't have the ability to care for him. The amount of drugs that he was prescribed — over six different antipsychotic drugs — took away his quality of life, and this is recent.

I think that the ministry…. Even though they have improving clinical guidelines for the use of antipsychotic drugs in acute care facilities, there needs to be due diligence or something from the ministry to the health authorities, because it's not working.

What generally happens is when a senior ends up in an acute care facility, there isn't the capability of taking care of him. If they are in any way affected with dementia or any kind of anxiety, they're automatically prescribed antipsychotic drugs.

[1810]

If they're in an acute care facility for any length of time because there's no alternative level of care — they're an ALC patient, and they can't get out to a facility where they should be — they're continued to be prescribed antipsychotic drugs. And the longer they're on them, the worse it gets, and the worse they lose the ability.

The one fellow I knew — when he went into the hospital, he could walk himself, he could toilet himself, he could drink coffee, he could function, and when he left,
[ Page 949 ]
his wife referred to him as a virtual zombie, after three months in the Abbotsford hospital. They base it all on the amount of antipsychotic drugs he was given. He went to Delta View, where they have a different philosophy. They were able to slowly take him off all of those antipsychotic drugs, and he actually…. I mean, he never got his quality of life back because he lost so much, but what he did gain was the ability to start to function again, somewhat.

I think there needs to be more due diligence paid by the ministry to ensure that there are some kinds of guidelines in acute care facilities. There's either some kind of extra units for people with dementia in acute care, or extra care, because it's really not working in the province. It's a real concern, and we keep….

I know that the ministry just did a full report on antipsychotics usage in facilities. I'm wondering how the ministry is carrying on with the recommendations that came out of that report and actually ensuring that those recommendations are implemented in acute care facilities and in residential care facilities across the province.

Hon. T. Lake: The member points out, I think, a real need to move in this area. The ministry is working closely to align activities related to the guidelines with key partners, including the B.C. Patient Safety and Quality Council. It launched its voluntary call for less antipsychotics in residential care initiative in June 2013.

I mentioned the PIECES training. In fact, we are providing extra funding to each regional health authority for dementia care training and education sessions through this fiscal year as well.

We are able to track the use of antipsychotic drugs through PharmaNet, so we will be monitoring this and supporting health authorities as they try to use a minimum amount of antipsychotic drugs in both acute care situations and in long-term residential care.

K. Conroy: Is there a guideline for that? Are there some deadlines that the ministry is going to implement on health authorities and residential care facilities? By that, I mean all residential care facilities.

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned earlier, the ministry has signed a three-year licence with PIECES Canada for use of their residential care dementia education program, so that will be implemented in all health authorities through the end of 2013. That program will be used to assess the appropriate care for different dementia patients, with the goal, as the member indicated, of reducing the use of antipsychotic drugs, and we will be tracking that through the PharmaNet system.

[1815]

K. Conroy: A facility like Delta View had a proven record of showing they could care for persons with dementia with very little, if any, antipsychotic drugs. Because they had their funding cut, I'm just wondering if Fraser Health Authority didn't get the memo that the ministry was moving towards less use of antipsychotic drugs. This was a facility that was doing that, and doing it very well. Yes, it cost a little bit more because it's a matter of putting a little more staff into place as opposed to restraining someone with drugs, which is cheaper than a staff person.

I'm just wondering why this facility would have had its funding cut and not be supported to carry on providing this kind of service.

Hon. T. Lake: I don't know the specifics of this particular facility and what led to the change in their approach, but the member brings up a fair point, and we will try to gather more information and provide that to her.

K. Conroy: I'd be happy to give the minister all the information, too, as we did raise it in the Legislature in the spring session. I'd be happy to provide all the information around that facility, because it is a real shame. Families, in fact, offered to try to make up the difference, and Fraser Health Authority said no. So I think it's one that I will be only too happy to provide the information for.

I'm just conscious of the time.

Just around the Better at Home program — the money that the ministry is supporting, the United Way money that's going out to the Better at Home programs for home support…. I've talked to a number of different service providers who have either started or are well into this program and to some who are just considering it. I'm wondering how the ministry is ensuring that there are consistent guidelines with this program across the province.

Some of the organizations I've talked to have expressed real concerns about liability issues because the program is based on volunteers. Having volunteers come in and do the non-medical home support is an interesting concept — if you can get the volunteers in your community, for starters, to do it and if you have volunteers that are screened and not going to end up being any kind of an issue for taking care of vulnerable seniors.

Some of the programs have actually brought in paid staff because they can't do it with volunteer staff, and some organizations are really concerned about the need to implement this program using volunteer staff. Then we get to the whole issue around volunteers doing home support work.

I recognize it's non-medical, but I still think there are some issues around the program. I'm just wondering what the ministry is doing around ensuring that there's consistency of regulations in this program across the province.

[1820]

Hon. T. Lake: The Better at Home program is one I am
[ Page 950 ]
very familiar with, as it is operating in my home community through the seniors outreach society on behalf of the United Way. This is for non-complex seniors. The most common sort of activity is friendly visits, transportation, maybe some light housekeeping and things like that.

Of course, in our Canadian society we've depended on volunteers to provide that kind of service historically. It's part of who we are as Canadians. Volunteerism is very important — church groups or other organizations that do this kind of work. I remember as a student in veterinary school we set up a pet visitation program in nursing homes, which was very advantageous for many of the residents.

The member is concerned or expressing some concern about the use of volunteers. All volunteers will go through a criminal record check. There are some of the programs that do employ some people to help coordinate and work with the volunteers. The volunteers are vetted through that process, and we meet with the United Way on a monthly basis to monitor the program and look at strengths and weaknesses and what is working in one place that may help and transfer that success to other locations as well.

K. Conroy: In fact, Kamloops has a great program. They don't utilize volunteers. They actually pay the people to do the work. It's one of the programs that pays people to do the work, because they've found that it works better.

There's consistency of people that are providing the service, consistency of people meeting with the seniors so that the seniors don't have different people coming and going. They're one of the better programs in the province, and I agree with the minister on that, but they also said that they had real concerns around the volunteer issue, and the majority of the people doing the work in the Kamloops program are actually paid.

Every program has one paid person — the minister is correct there — that does the hiring of volunteers, but it is still a concern that we're depending on the volunteers to do so much of the work. I just hope that the ministry is going to ensure that consistent regulations are in place.

I know that the United Way of the Lower Mainland is an excellent organization that is working hard to make this initiative work. I just want to put on the record the concern about volunteers doing so much of that work.

The ministry also released a Provincial End-of-Life Care Action Plan. It's a great plan. I'll also reiterate my comment: the writing is really small. I think the majority of the people reading it are in a demographic where they'd appreciate a little bigger writing.

I noticed with interest — I think it was in April right before the election; maybe it was end of March — that there were three hospices that got significant funding in the Lower Mainland area. Hospice is a real issue in the interior of the province. There are some good hospice facilities. Prince George has an excellent one. I know they do in Penticton that's attached to the hospital. I think there's one in Kamloops that I've toured.

But there are a number of areas in the province that don't have any recognized hospice in a facility and are desperately trying to raise funds to do that. The Kootenays, for example, is an area that is struggling to provide appropriate hospice.

I mean, you can provide so much in an acute care setting or in a residential care facility, but the reality is that when you have an appropriate hospice facility like you do in some of those communities, it really benefits the community and makes the end-of-life process a lot more palatable, so to speak, for not only the person that is passing away but the family members as well.

[1825]

I'm wondering if there is any investment consideration for the rest of the province, those rural areas. I'm talking about areas that are willing to have one facility for a large area.

The West Kootenays is a large area, and they're willing to work together to have one facility because they recognize how desperately it's needed. But there doesn't seem to be any reciprocating from the ministry in recognizing that hospice is really needed out in rural B.C.

Hon. T. Lake: Thanks to the member for the question. This is an important one. I've toured…. Well, I certainly have had experience with the Kamloops hospice facility, and there are great organizations around the province that are working on hospice, whether they are stand-alone facilities or providing that service within another facility.

The member mentioned the $2 million we put towards a centre for excellence in end-of-life care — also, one-time funding for a number of different organizations which totalled about $8 million. We have committed to doubling the number of hospice spaces by 2020. The member is absolutely correct that in many rural areas of the province, this is a very large priority.

I know there are people working in the Comox Valley, for instance, that are very interested in having a hospice facility of some type. So certainly we would like to work with all members of the House to identify areas of the province where these facilities are required and commit, over the number of years ahead of us as we march towards our goal, to working with all members to find the best locations and organizations that we can support, to provide those hospice beds.

Noting the hour, hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:27 p.m.
[ Page 951 ]

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

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

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

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

Hon. R. Coleman moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House at its rising stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:29 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. Sturdy in the chair.

The committee met at 2:41 p.m.

On Vote 39: ministry operations, $15,694,000 (continued).

J. Kwan: We only have two more hours in these debates, I'm just told. I'm absolutely dismayed about that, because I've got piles and piles of questions.

Interjection.

J. Kwan: I know the minister is very excited about these questions.

We were talking about the non-profit housing sector, where the federal subsidy agreements would end. The same actually goes for the cooperative sector.

Between now and 2017 almost 1,500 units, or households, living in federally financed housing co-ops will lose their rent-geared-to-income subsidies that makes their income affordable as their agreements with CMHC expire. The number will grow to 37 households by 2022.

Now that the responsibility of co-op housing is downloaded to the province and the territories, what are the government's plans to replace these lost subsidies so that the low-income co-op housing members will be able to maintain their homes? Would the strategy that the government is adopting for the non-profit sector also apply to the co-op sector?

Hon. R. Coleman: We don't do co-ops. Co-ops were never transferred to us. They remain under federal jurisdiction. We have had some discussions with them with regards to scope and cost implications for them as they negotiate directly with the federal government, but we don't have responsibility for the co-ops.

J. Kwan: When the minister says, "We don't have responsibility for co-ops," the problem remains, though, that there will be a situation where these units…. When the federal agreement expires, the affordable housing that comes out of these co-op units will also cease, expire, unless something is done. Is the minister saying that there is no discussion at all on this issue with the federal government?

[1445]

Hon. R. Coleman: They would be included in our discussions with the federal government, but the member should know that we have no management, no lease and no operating agreement with co-ops. They are all directly with the federal government.

Obviously, the importance of the federal government living up to its commitments to co-ops will be part of the discussion. We do have some rent supplement agreements with some co-ops, a very small subset where we do some rent supplements, but they are also tied to the federal funding.

The bottom line, though, is that they are actually now just…. In earlier questions the member was asking about core need — how many rentals, etc. They're just now amassing that information. They're going to share it with us so that we can actually bring it into our discussions with the federal government, but we have not received it just yet.

A. Weaver: Thank you to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant for allowing me to ask a question that is very dear to the hearts of a number of constituents of mine.

In 2009 the minister cut the leaky-condos repair program that provided assistance to condo owners who were faced with a significant reconstruction cost as a result of the leaky-condo crisis from the 1980s and 1990s. At the time it was estimated that between 45 percent and 65 percent of B.C. leaky condos had not yet been repaired.

Given the ongoing leaky-condo issues that continue to affect thousands of British Columbians, is the minister considering reintroducing the repair assistance programs?
[ Page 952 ]

As a supplemental, given that many current leaky-condo owners did not own their condo when the program was running, what supports will the minister offer these new owners to ensure that they are not unduly disadvantaged by this ongoing crisis?

Hon. R. Coleman: This program was put in place in 1998. It was supposed to last for a maximum of ten years, and it went beyond that to 12. There were three-quarters of a billion dollars in loans given to leaky-condo owners during that period of time. The loan portfolio is performing reasonably well, or has performed reasonably well.

[1450]

The fact of the matter is that if somebody has bought a leaky condo recently, somebody should have done some due diligence on minutes with regards to the strata council, because those are supposed to be provided, and disclosure in and around any minute with regards to any issues with water ingress or egress. That should have been disclosed. Then they should have made their purchase based on caveat emptor, which is buyer beware.

The fact of the matter is that the program had reached its life on the units that had been identified, and there's no plan to reinstitute a program.

J. Kwan: I wonder if, when the minister receives that information, he could also share a copy of that with me — the information that breaks down the core needs that we were talking about earlier.

Interjection.

J. Kwan: Yeah. I imagine I may get it elsewhere as well, but just in case, so that we can all have the same information.

Emergency shelters. According to the government service plan, the province has 11,340 emergency shelters and housing for the homeless. It states that 1,860 shelter spaces are there to serve the homeless. Is that how many shelter spaces, or beds, there are in the province? Of that number, how many of them are actually beds, versus mats?

Hon. R. Coleman: When we got this file, there were about 700 permanent, year-round emergency shelter beds in British Columbia, at a cost of about $12 million. Today there are 2,000 permanent, year-round emergency shelter beds — most of them would be beds; some would be mats — at a cost of $70 million, plus another $3.7 million. So it would be $73.7 million funded for that. That also includes the HEAT shelters in Vancouver. There are 200 beds there.

Those are year-round emergency shelter beds in 48 communities across the province. Ninety-seven percent of the permanent shelter beds are available, 92 percent of those are available 24-7, and 95 percent provide three meals a day.

Those were big changes made to the shelter system. I'll just repeat the numbers. So $73-point-some million for 2,000 permanent, year-round shelter beds, including the HEAT shelters in Vancouver, in 48 communities. Ninety-two percent of the permanent shelter beds are available 24-7, and 95 percent provide three meals a day.

In addition to that, there is the extreme weather response program, as well as another response program that goes beyond that when it gets even worse outside. In those, there is additional…. It's a program that funds time-limited, temporary shelter beds for individuals who are homeless during extreme weather conditions from November 1 to March 31 of every year.

[1455]

J. Kwan: This is the same minister, and I don't have to have this information right at this moment. I'm wondering: does the minister have the breakdown of those shelters in communities?

The reason why I ask that is that I actually find it challenging…. I won't name names, but some municipalities, for example, don't have a shelter in their entire municipality. It is hard for me to envision that there is not one single homeless person in that particular municipality, as an example.

I'm curious to know: of these 48 communities that have these 2,000 permanent, year-round shelter beds/mats, does the minister have a list of where they are so I can actually see what municipalities they are and which ones are, in fact, missing such a service?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, we can provide the member with a list. But I should be clear. There are communities that will not take a shelter. Burnaby is an example. Burnaby will take no shelter, will not work with Housing in any way — on land or development — for people that are homeless, at risk of homelessness, and even opposes most other forms of supported housing.

There's a group in Burnaby that would love to have a shelter. We would be pleased to come to the table with the funding. But in some cases you have jurisdictions, like the member described, that actually don't want to believe that they should be part of the solution.

What happens is the solution goes to New Westminster. It goes to Coquitlam, where there's a shelter and supported housing. It goes to Vancouver. It goes to Richmond. It goes to other communities where we have the support of community to make that happen.

I think the description would be that it has become less and less unique. Seven or eight years ago, when I first got the Housing portfolio, there were a number of communities that said to me — and then in 2006, when we launched a strategy: "We don't have a problem." They have now come forward over the last five or six years with
[ Page 953 ]
land and opportunity and supportive areas for shelters. They do want to be part of the solution.

But there are communities — the member is correct — that do not actually step up to the plate or want to recognize that that relationship could exist in their community.

J. Kwan: I would appreciate that information. It would be good to see what the lay of the land is across the province. In instances where there are problems with certain municipalities that do not want to move forward in providing a shelter, it would be good to know exactly where those locations are.

I think it is also important to note that shelters, too, are a temporary solution. It is a part of a solution, but it is a temporary solution. I think often what people are also looking for — and really hoping for, of course — are long-term solutions because, as we know, shelters are not homes.

I want to ask the minister: in terms of these shelters, does the minister keep stats on whether or not people are turned away at any point in time? Certain ones, I know, are weather-dependent, and all of those kinds of things kick in. Do we know and does the minister have stats that show whether or not these shelters ever had to turn away individuals?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm not going to give you the information. All you have to do is go to the B.C. Housing website. Go to "How to access shelters," and it will give you a list of every shelter in B.C., the number of beds and the city that they're in.

That is actually on line, in public now, easy to access. We just accessed it. It took two seconds. So rather than print it out for you, I'll just say go to the B.C. Housing website, and all that information is there for you. By all means, if you have any questions after that, get back to us.

The toughest thing to track is the statistical information around turn-aways at shelters. What can happen is that some nights somebody can go to a shelter. That particular shelter could be full, and they end up in another shelter that has room. The service providers share information and communication between each other in addition to that. So it has been one of the statistics that is not….

[1500]

I guess the best description would be that we don't track them by person. So if somebody is turned away, they might keep the numbers of turn-aways, but that doesn't mean they didn't go down the street three blocks and go to another shelter that had a bed available or were made aware, as they went to that service provider, of another bed that was available, which they went to. So that part has always been difficult to track.

J. Kwan: I checked the website, but I'll go back. I probably just missed it, then, in trying to track down that information.

In term of the stats, I appreciate that it is hard to track. The societies who are doing it, who are running the shelters — are they asked to keep stats?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, they are.

J. Kwan: Do they report that out back to the ministry?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes.

J. Kwan: Maybe I can get that information. Is that possible — the things that they submit?

Hon. R. Coleman: I could take that under consideration, but I suppose we could probably do that.

J. Kwan: Well, that's awfully kind. You know what? We'll get along really well if you will just do that.

The minister offered me cough drops. I think that's actually meant to tame me, and so far, it's working. It works even better if I can get the information.

All right. So I'll be looking forward to receiving that information, because I think it's important information so that we have a better understanding of the situation.

Now, in terms of shelter beds, are there limitations to how long a person can stay? I know, generally speaking, there are some limitations — for example, persons not able to stay longer than a month, etc. Can the minister advise whether or not there are limitations?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's actually a myth. We don't have a policy that says after 30 days someone has to move on out of a shelter. That changed when the Housing portfolio moved in 2005. At one time there were some restrictions. Individual societies that do operate shelters may have some internal policies, but they wouldn't be our policies.

Basically, what we do — because of the outreach program and the connectivity that we're trying to get — if we have somebody staying in a shelter for that length of period of time is really work with them to find housing, to move them into something more suitable so they don't require a shelter in the future.

J. Kwan: It's good to know that's just a myth, because that myth is still very much alive in the community.

Okay. Just moving on quickly to transitional, supportive and assisted living. According to the service plan, there are some 830 spaces to serve women and children fleeing violence. I'm wondering if the minister has a list of where this transitional housing is located — again, municipality by municipality. And how many beds are available in each municipality?

I know we don't want to, obviously, put the addresses of these on the record, but rather just to get an under-
[ Page 954 ]
standing of where it's located in each community.

[1505]

Hon. R. Coleman: The list of all transition houses in B.C., which are now all funded 24-7 — since we took over the housing portfolio and took those on in about 2006-7, and we actually moved to 24-7 — are also listed on the B.C. Housing website, but not their addresses. So the name of the particular transition house plus the contact number for people to be able to get a hold of them is there.

In addition to that, we have a number of other supportive housing projects specifically for women. I'll give you some examples, because I don't have them all here: Sorella, which is a new 108-unit building for women and women with children who are homeless or at risk of homeless; the Vivian, 24 units; the Rice Block, 42 units in a provincially owned SRO; the Rainier Hotel, 41 units in a provincially owned SRO; and a number of others. I'm sure we'll check and see whether those are actually listed on the website specifically for women and children.

We began construction on the 147-unit apartment building for women and women with children who are homeless or at risk of homeless, with the B.C. government providing $37 million construction financing and approximately $890,000 annual operating funding at a building called the Budzey building as well.

Those are examples in Vancouver, but in actual fact, we have buildings in Vancouver, Surrey, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Maple Ridge, Campbell River, Prince Rupert, Abbotsford and other communities as well.

J. Kwan: The list that the minister read off — if we can cross-reference it with the other list, it would be good to get a list of what's going on in the province.

Also, if the minister can advise about the age limit for children. I've recently just come across a case in my office where somebody was fleeing violence and ended up in my office. She has children, of which one of them is 16 years old and happens to be a boy. She had difficulty in accessing shelter, transitional shelters, because of the 16-year-old son. They actually had to be separated. Is that the case? Is that the policy around that? Maybe the minister could clarify.

[1510]

Hon. R. Coleman: We don't have such a policy on the age side of children relative to transition housing or emergency shelters, that sort of thing. If the member — probably may not want to put the name of the organization on the record — wants to provide it to me, we'll have a look at the policies of the one place that this individual went where they said they had to separate the children and find out what the background is on that.

J. Kwan: Does the minister have responsibility for first- and second-stage housing as well?

Hon. R. Coleman: We received the existing transition, safe homes, second-stage housing portfolios a few years ago, so yes, we do have responsibility there. But we don't just stop there. We never stopped there. We have relationships with our non-profits about how we would score for people in emergency situations, and for second-stage housing we have relationships within our own portfolio.

In addition to that, some of the projects I mentioned earlier are all geared to this type of situation. In Vancouver there are approximately 190 women-only shelter spaces that receive annual funding of $6 million. In addition to that, there are 217 affordable and supportive housings over and above what we already had in the portfolio, specifically for women. There is also construction underway on another 147-unit building for women and children.

In Surrey there is a 36-unit supportive housing development which is open for women and children with the YWCA. In Burnaby there's a new 23-unit women's residence open, which has a certain amount of funding and annual funding supports like all the rest of them.

We have supportive housing in Coquitlam, plus we recently moved on a couple of other new projects in Coquitlam. In Maple Ridge, obviously, we have a number of beds — 17 beds — and in Campbell River the same. We opened up a couple of projects up there: one for 27 second-stage transitional housing apartments for women and also a place for 24 supportive housing apartments for women with or without children who are at risk of homelessness.

The same thing in Prince Rupert and in Abbotsford, where on municipally owned land we put a…. Resource Society of the Fraser Valley opened the Christine Lamb Residence, a 41-unit supportive housing development.

So all of those, plus more also. I already told the member we would get the numbers. And by the way, all of these are on the website. The numbers are on the website for you to go review by community, by classification — all that sort of thing. So yeah, we have second stage.

I think the one the member gave me…. She specifically handed me a letter about this specific case. I'll find out where we're at with it, because I did ask our office to look into it and see — get some background on it and work on it. I'm sure they're listening, so they may run me up a note just quickly to see where the status is, because we did go to B.C. Housing with it to see if we could find a solution for that particular family.

J. Kwan: Thanks very much. I really appreciate that.

I do actually have a stack of cases that I want to raise, and amongst them is that one. I'm glad the minister is onto it, because…. Well, the letter speaks to the situation, so I'll leave it at that. Maybe he'll get a note, and then we can move on from that one.

Now, back to the first-, second-stage housing, transitional housing and so on. Am I assuming correctly that there are no limitations in terms of the length of stays,
[ Page 955 ]
the same as shelters, or are there limitations?

[1515]

My understanding is that there are limitations. I've had families who have basically been evicted, having stayed there for a month and then actually without a place to go. I'm hoping that maybe that's the mythology and that we can fix that somehow.

Then also, if the minister himself is aware of any gaps in terms of space, of availability…. I know that the trend is such that families tend to be smaller these days rather than larger, but there are occasions where families come in and have more children than otherwise anticipated.

In those situations, I wonder if the minister has identified those as issues or areas of gaps that need to be addressed in this provision of transitional housing, first- and second-stage housing and even longer-term housing.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm going to try and do this again for the member.

We do not have a rule for shelters as to how long they stay. Some organizations, like I said earlier, are allowed, based on their local needs, to set policies with regards to the operations they're running. They're in a shared-management relationship, where they're managing them on our behalf. But we do not have a policy that says they can't.

Transition housing is 30 days, which the member, I think, is well aware of. During that period of time, it's really a safe, temporary shelter with 24-7 staffing. It's to help people that are coming to transition housing in accessing housing and financial, medical and legal assistance so that they can transition from that housing to others.

Temporary housing, which is safe homes — we have some of those. Safe-home beds we would call them. That's temporary housing with support services where transition homes don't exist in the communities across B.C. We would have contracts where it would be private homes, hotel units or rental apartments that we would have a relationship with. That does not usually exceed ten days in those particular locations.

Second-stage housing is longer-term housing and support services, followed by a stay in transition houses, usually for six to 18 months. That's the second-stage housing that we had in the inventory.

In addition to that, when we have somebody coming out of a transition house because of their risk of homelessness, where their point scores are usually higher, most times we can find them housing within the portfolios of the non-profits or whatever. That's not time-limited. As long as they meet the need while they're living there, they can stay there.

We have a lot of relationships with non-profits that I know of. But even when I was involved in non-profit housing back in the '80s, we made a policy with B.C. Housing at the time to accept second-stage housing. Basically, they were given a permanent unit when they came out of transition houses in the community that I lived in. They were given some priority on the list because of their background.

[1520]

On the second part of the question, a lot of these ones with larger families we try and handle on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes we can do it with rent assistance, because they need a larger home. We can do rent assistance for them, depending on income or what their situation is.

We did recently have a fire in a building in Burnaby, in one of the member's colleague's riding. When we rebuilt the building, because it was a large immigrant population in the area we actually added four-bedroom units to the project. We recognized that in that particular area, we had a little different housing mix.

We try to deal with that. It's not as prevalent as a need for one- and two-children families, but we do sometimes have unique situations, and we try to work with our housing providers or with our other programs to try and address those issues.

J. Kwan: In the case where someone runs up to their 30-day limit, which I fully understand, of course…. The plan is to help and transition, and then the nature of the housing is transitional. But there are occasions that I'm sure the minister is aware of where people are not able to secure housing right after that.

I actually recently came into a situation where I know a family was pretty well evicted from their first-stage housing, a family who were fleeing violence, and it was devastating. It was the first time their entire family had experienced such a situation. This woman had nowhere to go and nowhere to turn and contemplated the option of actually going back to the abuser. You could imagine those kinds of scenarios and the situation that people are faced with.

While I appreciate that that clearly is not the goal and that people want to transition them, sometimes there is just no availability of other housing forms. In those instances, can there be exceptions made so that those families are not displaced somehow, then, when the only option is considering going back to the abuser?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, this is usually a very difficult time in peoples' lives, when they've made the decision to leave and seek support of a transition house. It's a very emotional time, a difficult time, and you can't possibly imagine each one's specific situation as being able to sort of cookie-cutter what will work for them.

We have a priority placement coordinator at B.C. Housing who works with all our transition houses and non-profit housing in our portfolio as well, to reposition people coming out of transition houses into housing that is more permanent for their needs. Each society is encouraged, quite frankly, to use that coordinator and work
[ Page 956 ]
in a way that works for them.

Specific cases are difficult. Even the case that the member brought up earlier…. There is some background I will share — but I will not share with her publicly — with regards to that specific case that I think she should be aware of.

[1525]

In addition to that, we made the decision to take transition houses to 24-7 — fund them 24-7, 365 days a year — so that we'd have staff there for folks to be able to do this. We have expanded the program.

There are times, sometimes, where the priority placement coordinator will end up encouraging a society to extend the stay because we're working with them to find housing for the individual. It isn't, though, that we want to create a policy where transition housing becomes permanent housing, because it is there for a specific reason — women and children fleeing abuse, in that very difficult time for them.

So we try — and, I think, most times very successfully — to coordinate with B.C. Housing, our transition houses and our priority placement coordinator folks to make sure we're taking care of these people in their time of need and that we give them priorities to get into housing and turn their personal situations around.

Having said that, their own decisions I would never judge — whether they go back or not go back, or where they stay and certain types of housing, or go back into their relationship — because I have observed over my lifetime that this is a very difficult time for people. They have very difficult decisions that they emotionally make.

Our staff work very hard, and so do the transition house staff, to help them through that period of time and then to transition them to housing, as they come through the transition houses.

J. Kwan: Maybe the minister can pass me the information of these individuals that we could contact. Somehow, I don't know why it is, my office seems to attract a lot of people who need these kinds of help — often, actually, people not even necessarily from my community. They just somehow land there. It's just very difficult for both myself and our staff to try to manage all of that. We do our very best to try to assist, whether they're a constituent or not.

If there is a direct link of somebody that we can go to at B.C. Housing, I would really appreciate that contact — phone number and information — so that we can deal with that in, I think, the most effective way as possible.

I think, fair enough, nobody is there to judge anybody. What I'm really after is, of course, to make sure the options are available so that people and the women who are faced with fleeing violence are not forced to go back to the abuser because they cannot access some form of stable housing for themselves and their children. I think that's the last thing we want to see, and I think the minister would agree with me on that.

I just want to ask the minister…. I know the service plan cites that there are other partners that the government works with, including other ministries like Social Development, Health, Aboriginal Relations, Children and Family Development, etc. I'm wondering what work is being done to address families who have their children apprehended, or are at risk of having their children apprehended, because they don't have appropriate or safe affordable housing.

Again, I've come across families where that situation has occurred for the reason that they don't have safe, secure, affordable housing.

I raised this, actually, before the election, with the former Minister of Children and Family Development, Mary McNeil, thinking that that might be something that her ministry might take on. We actually had some really good discussions. I had some very good discussions with both her and her staff. Of course, at the end of the day, though, the issue comes back to housing, which is where it has been referred back to.

I'm wondering, since the issue has been raised in the last round of estimates debate, whether or not there has been ongoing work in dealing with this. I think, again, the minister would agree with me that nobody wants to see that happen to families who because of poverty and because of those kinds of situations are having to lose their children.

[1530]

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Hon. R. Coleman: This is not probably as detailed of an answer as the member was probably looking for, simply because each case that comes through MCFD with the apprehension of children we really have very little to do with. We do know the situation exists where families are split because of the lack of housing as part of the apprehension, or the concern that MCFD has. We don't get involved at that level.

However, having said that, all the projects that I mentioned earlier — the ones in Vancouver, Surrey, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Campbell River, Prince Rupert and Abbotsford — are geared to trying to solve that problem for families in those communities.

We recognize that families…. To have a transition for people into housing, to get their children back, is a big part of the social fabric of the family. That's why we have these projects that we've designed and brought on stream in the last few years — to help with that issue for the ministries.

We do coordinate and we do work across ministries on a number of files, but in this one what we do is keep them apprised of what we're doing so they know…. They have, obviously, an inventory of where this housing is and that relationship to the housing, but we don't get involved.
[ Page 957 ]
The societies do, mind you, whether it be the YMCA or Atira or other organizations that run women-specific shelters, residences and that sort of thing.

They get involved with MCFD to reunite families and what have you, but our housing component is really the relationship to the funding of the building. It's a relationship with the society who then builds that relationship on behalf of the family back to MCFD.

J. Kwan: Yes, I fully understand that these cases are often very complex, but there have been occasions that I have come across where peoples' families are separated because of the lack of housing. That is the reason why.

If MCFD was assured that they would have some form of safe, affordable housing, then the family would not be separated. I'm not asking for the minister, obviously, to intervene, really, in those instances. The provision of the housing makes all of the difference in the world, and that becomes the solution in those kinds of cases.

I know of the projects that are out there that are a trying to meet those needs. With that said, because there is such a high demand for these kinds of housing, the truth is — and I think the minister knows this as well — that often the societies are doing as best a job as they possibly could but they simply don't have the space available. Hence, the problem sort of continues.

I'm hoping…. I bring this to the minister's attention to put it on his radar as an issue that needs continuous effort. Again, I don't know, but as the magnet for attraction of situations as such, perhaps there is somebody within B.C. Housing that I could turn to or my office could turn to where these situations occur that could provide expedited assistance for those families. Maybe the minister can confirm that that could happen.

Likewise, parking that for a minute…. I'm rushing this through because I'm recognizing about the tightness in time. Recognizing that in other ministries I actually have another case here with an individual who happens to have a variety of health challenges.

[1535]

He actually had stable housing for a number of years — I think close to a decade. Unfortunately, his landlord had to take back his rental space for family use, so he's been evicted. Consequently, this individual is homeless.

He is slated for a non-elective surgery. He has cancer, and he has to go through the procedure. Of course, his physician is quite concerned about the fact that he needs a safe place for the healing process thereafter.

This is, in fact, a case that landed on my desk. However, after some digging, we've realized that this is a case that's actually in the constituency of Vancouver-Fairview, and my colleague has written a letter. If the minister has not received it already, it should be in the system somewhere, making its way to the minister. I'll be happy to pass on the detailed information, because I have all the consent for this individual.

In that instance, that's with another ministry, where health issues are related to this individual who needs housing, who had stable housing for close to a decade and, for reasons that he cannot control, now finds himself in this environment. So I wonder if I can pass this case along, along with my colleague the member for Vancouver-Fairview, to the minister. Maybe his office and his staff could take a look at it and see whether or not a resolution could be found for this individual.

Hon. R. Coleman: One thing I've never done and I won't do today is comment on individual cases with regards to housing without having all the facts and information. If the member wants to provide me with the information, we will have somebody look into it. I do know we have a similar one elsewhere in the province, which our folks are working on to find solutions for somebody else who has a similar description. We do that with people that need housing.

My experience — my constituency office experience and my experience both in opposition and government — is that my first line as an MLA was always to contact B.C. Housing, which I have found to be pretty darn responsive to cases like this whenever I called, no matter what position I held.

J. Kwan: Well, that's what I'm asking — for the minister to undertake to look at these cases. In this instance, as I said, a letter is actually making its way to the minister from the member for Vancouver-Fairview. I have a host of other cases which I've written to the minister about, on which I'm still waiting for a response.

Generally speaking, I think people try to address these issues, but oftentimes they…. You know, maybe the stock is not available. I don't know what the situation is, but you have these situations where people are in a crisis, and it just sort of gets worse and worse and worse.

That's why I wanted to bring this to the minister's attention. I'm glad that he will undertake to look at the case. The detailed information will be passed on to him, and hopefully we can get that resolved.

I wonder if I can turn for a minute to the issue of organizational structure within the ministry. I wonder if the minister could tell me: how many staff does B.C. Housing have today, and how does that compare year to year? Let's go back to 2001. And likewise for the budget. How does that compare year to year on the budget?

I fully recognize that the minister may not have all that information at his fingertips, but if he doesn't, if I can endeavour to get that information. I'd just like to see how the organizational structure within B.C. Housing has changed over time.

[1540]

Hon. R. Coleman: On page 44 of the B.C. Housing Revised Service Plan it gives the results and budget pro-
[ Page 958 ]
jections from 2007-08 through to 2015-16. I'd caution the member to read it in the following context. The provincial share in the revenues for B.C. Housing and expenditures — those include both operating and capital dollars.

So in a year that you might have had a particular relationship with the federal government — for instance, in matching dollars on certain types of housing, like seniors housing — you might see the total number go up. In other years, when that capital has been expended, you'll see the numbers fluctuate across.

There are about 650 people that work in B.C. Housing's operations today. That would be higher than it was in 2005-2006, simply because we moved the Homeowner Protection Office to B.C. Housing.

Over the last number of years transition housing was moved to B.C. Housing, and some other housing programs along the way were also moved in. As a result, to try and get a coordinated approach on housing, actually some of its mandates were expanded, which would have included adding more people.

J. Kwan: I wonder if we could do this — if I could sit down at a different time and have a briefing with staff so that I could actually get a full understanding of how the structural organization has evolved over time and what new programs have been added and so on, just so I get a full sense of it.

I think the minister is right. Things have changed, but I haven't followed them all very closely. I have the document, but it's difficult to follow through as the minister is articulating it the way he is at the moment.

I'm also feeling the pressure of time. I see my colleagues coming into the room, and they're going to be badgering me about wanting to ask questions pretty soon. I have a whole host of questions, just so that I understand the organizational structure within B.C. Housing. I wonder if the minister could commit to me so that I could have a briefing at a different time around this.

[1545]

Hon. R. Coleman: Maybe the best way to approach this is…. I don't know if the member has more questions today that she wants to just put on the record, if we're moving to other people. The other piece would be, after you've had a chance to review the service plan and the website, you could provide us with what areas of concern you have. Then we could actually identify the appropriate people who would need to sit down and brief, if necessary.

Obviously, you need to know which areas you want to go to. I don't think I need to go to what units are in what community if it's already on the website. Obviously, we would want to shape the briefing so that it would be worthwhile for the member.

J. Kwan: On the question around organizational structure, the minister went back to 2005, for example. I'm actually wanting to go further than that in a year-by-year comparison since 2001; the breakdown of management versus non-management; the breakdown on the budget, as well, in terms of the staffing; and then broken down by, I guess, departments, if you will — operational branches, the corporate support branches, etc.

According to the Livegreen B.C. Housing's Housing Sustainability Plan, it actually cites organizational growth requiring additional office space as a reason for B.C. Housing not meeting the percentage reduction in GHGs from energy used in the offices. I'm curious as to how much additional space B.C. Housing did have to acquire to accommodate the growth. How much was the growth by employees and space? Where is the additional office space located? How does this year compare to previous years, back to 2001? What drove the need for the growth, and what new programs were absorbed by the ministry or developed by the ministry that required the growth, as an example? So that's just on the structural side of things.

I actually have quite a long list of questions. I'm not even sure if I have enough time to read them all into the record.

But fair enough to say that to set up the briefings, for each briefing before we begin, we'll get into the categories of areas that I want to cover so that I could get the information either from the briefing or afterwards — right? — to pass the information to the ministry staff. Then the information can come forward if they could not be answered at the briefing.

Likewise, in other areas: on renovations, retrofits and repairs, the B.C. Housing service plan recognizes "major repairs, renovations, capital improvements and energy retrofits for social housing" as a major issue with the organization. So does the government have a plan on how they would address these issues? Is there a plan that the minister could share with us? How much from the budget is allocated for each category in need?

According to the service plan, loss of affordable housing stock is identified as a key strategic risk, and it states that "detailed condition assessments are conducted and facility condition indices established for all provincially owned properties and for non-profit housing over time" is also being done. Is that completed? If so, can the minister share that information with us so that we know the state of the housing stock that we have in the province?

[1550]

Does the ministry have a list of the projects that show what the capital investment needs are and what the budget allocated for this area is? How many of the projects within the portfolio have been reviewed, and how much is allocated from the budget to address that?

Anyway, I could sort of go on, but it's just to try and sort of get the lay of the land on the capital needs, renovation needs, retrofit needs, etc.

In addition to that, with the aging stock, I think there
[ Page 959 ]
are two categories. There is the non-profit side, and B.C. Housing, I think, operates their own. That is about 7,000 or 8,000-plus housing units that the ministry operates itself. Is there a plan for the replacement of the 7,000 to 8,000 public housing units that were built in the 1950s and 1960s that are now managed by B.C. Housing?

I know that is a lot of questions I put to the minister, which is why I'm asking to see whether or not we can actually get a briefing on this. I don't think it's feasible for me to be able to get the answers at this moment for all of these questions.

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't want to be glib here, but when my staff are asked to go prepare for a briefing, my expectation is somebody has done their homework. All of what the member just touched on here is disclosed in the annual reports of B.C. Housing by B.C. Housing on an annual basis. Every annual report from 1995-96 to 2011-2012 is on the website of B.C. Housing. Every one of them is there with that information included in it.

In the secondary answer, there were a lot of questions there from the member. We have inspected all of our buildings. We're working on a plan in place that will obviously know the age and what have you for renovations and those sorts of things that we do annually with regards to it.

We're working with the B.C. non-profit sector to do the same thing over the next five years to all of their buildings so that we can devise a plan as they age on what renovations and what have you they would need. We do, in buildings that were built after a certain year, have capital reserves that have been built up in those particular projects, because it's a requirement of the operating agreement. We manage those upgrades, like roofing and that sort of thing, with them based on the reserves that are part of the operating agreement and the moneys that we provide.

This is with the utmost respect. That's why I said earlier, if we could provide the questions that are pertinent to a briefing and let us know which areas you would like to discuss, we can work on that. But if it's going to be going back and saying to the member, "Well, actually, here it is in 1999. It's on the website. This was the number of FTEs. This was the number of people here in the annual report," then, at that point, it becomes somewhat of a frustrating exercise for both parties. I think we should keep that in mind.

I'm happy to work on the outline of what a briefing would look like so it would be beneficial to the member, like I said. It means the member has to provide us with some of the information that they're going to be looking for that's outside of the information that we're already providing.

J. Kwan: With all due respect, actually, the minister knows very well that the information that has been provided on the public record does not break it down to the level of detail I'm looking for.

[1555]

I'm looking for comparisons from 2013, as the programs have changed. Oftentimes when you actually have program changes, when you compare those numbers from one year to another year, it doesn't actually make any sense, because it doesn't state clearly where that comparison is. You've got to have a baseline comparison.

Just sort of saying, "This is how many FTEs" and so on and so forth doesn't do it justice. So I'm looking for the level of detailed information to see how the organization has evolved over time, recognizing there have been changes to the organization itself.

Not to be glib myself, I think that's the level of accountability that we're all looking for. I think that in the spirit of cooperation, that's what we would do.

Excuse me if the staff or the minister think that I'm asking questions that are not particularly useful or are redundant or for information that's already on the public record. Quite frankly, the documentation does not actually provide any kind of information in the succinct way that we're all hoping for.

So I hope we don't go there. I don't think that's the purpose of it. I think that it's a fair question for an opposition member to ask so that we can actually understand the structural, organizational changes that have taken place within B.C. Housing and what's evolved over time.

When I read a document that actually says there's not enough space available…. How much has the space grown? Why was the space required? How many more staff have been needed in order to accommodate the growth in space, as an example, to accommodate the staff? Of that, how many are within the management scheme? How many are non-management? What projects are they handling at the moment? All of that information, I think, is pretty important.

I will put on the public record right now that I'd be interested in getting information on a project-by-project basis from the government on what the government's funding for the province is. I know there are a lot, so on a project-by-project basis, how much are they getting? What's the money for? How long is the agreement for? Again, it's so that you can make a comparison of categories of projects.

For example, shelters — are they all provided the same level of support, for people who run shelters? Or is there a difference in terms of different shelters? If there is a difference, why is there a difference in funding support?

For example, we were talking about transitional housing for women. Is there a difference in terms of how that funding on these projects is being provided versus other projects?

I am interested in getting this information so I can understand how the operation of B.C. Housing does its work vis-à-vis its partnership with the community.
[ Page 960 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: With respect, hon. Member, in the last 45 minutes you've asked me four questions on data about where projects are in communities and how many units, where the transition houses in B.C. are and how many units, and what shelters are available and how many units and what communities they're in, all of which is on the public record on the website of B.C. Housing.

You've asked me questions where the information is immediately available. I'm going to tell you right now that if you think we're spending a month going down to that level of detail on 60,000 units of housing in British Columbia…. I don't even go down to that level of detail as a minister. You're not going to get it, because that would just be a colossal waste of data.

We can tell you what the projects are. We can tell you what the subsidies are. We can tell you what numbers we're spending. We can give you the information. But to say, "Why is one shelter different than the other…?"

I can tell you why one shelter is different than another. One might be the Union Gospel Mission, where the funding is also donations from the public. Their level of budget is different than one that's run by another society in the Downtown Eastside. A shelter in one community will be more economical if there's no rent, no taxes and the land and the building are free.

To think that you can…. If you want to peel back literally tens or hundreds of thousands of operating agreement documentation…. I'm sorry. That is not what I think would be a valuable use for the questioning, or even the discussion, around housing.

Our job is to deliver housing; to successfully reduce homelessness, mental health and addictions on our streets of British Columbia; to provide housing, as we've discussed, for a variety of uses.

We have the list of all that information for you on the website. You're welcome to ask for additional information, and we will try and get it to you.

The question you just asked with regards to the non-profits. We will get you some information with regards to the inspection of our buildings.

[1600]

We plan to cooperate, but we're also not going to just spend time running a photocopier to send a bunch of data out or to overload a computer with a bunch of data that is never going to be reviewed at a level that has any impact on the delivery of housing in British Columbia. That would be not a good use of our time.

I've explained to you why the organization has grown and why we would need additional space. We added the Homeowner Protection Office, and we consolidated. So we got out of the lease there, and we moved people over to B.C. Housing. We received the transition houses and their operations to B.C. Housing, which used to be housed in a different ministry of government, for the funding and the subsidies and those sorts of things. We did that.

I'm happy to be open and have a cordial conversation about housing with the member, but at the same time, my frustration…. I'm not trying to be glib. I'm just saying to the member: if the briefing is requesting information that's already in the public record, I would request that before the briefing you review the material and the annual reports, and then the questions for the briefing can be more pertinent to a discussion that would be more fulsome for the member.

J. Kwan: I've just told the minister that the level of detail is not actually being provided from those reports that the minister is talking about. The reason why I'm asking about the operating agreements…. I'll tell the minister right now that I believe there are discrepancies in terms of certain agreements with certain societies and what sort of resources they're getting, and there are issues with some societies. Some societies are in a situation where their operating agreement, for example, is a very short term versus others that run a similar program and it's much longer term, and the resources afforded to them are much greater.

Maybe there are very simple answers to all of that. Maybe it's because they run different clientele. Maybe there are different issues that I'm not aware of. To the eye, it's not clear, and people are raising those concerns; societies are raising those concerns. The only way for me to assess what's going on there is to actually get a sense of what's going on with these operating agreements — what society is getting what to do what work and what kind of clientele they are actually trying to provide supports to. That's the only way to do it.

If the minister is suggesting that to get that information is a waste of computer space or time for anybody, I do beg to differ. I think that's a level of accountability that we're looking for.

So I would like to get that information from the minister. If he wants to get down to very specifics about which particular society, I suppose I can name them all off one by one through the list there. Then maybe the minister can tell me how they're grouped into what category and so on, so we can identify how that funding is determined by B.C. Housing for those societies and their operations.

Hon. R. Coleman: There are 70,000 units of housing in British Columbia that have been developed under more than 50 programs since the 1940s and '50s. The member, actually, should know this, because most of those operating agreements were actually there when she, for a short period of time, had the ministry. I suspect that she didn't ask for this level of detail and go read every one of those agreements during that period of time that she held that portfolio in government.

She knows the realistic piece about this, relative to this. The fact of the matter is we've offered to provide information but at the same time had questions here to-
[ Page 961 ]
day about information that's already provided. So all I'm asking is that in anticipation of a briefing, if the member wants to go away and do the work and send us the specific questions, we will prepare our folks to sit down with the member at the appropriate time with the appropriate information.

Having said that, though, let's make sure we're asking for information that isn't already on line, exposed or out there in the public purview, because if you're going to come down to B.C. Housing and say, "How many transition houses are there," they're going to say: "Here they are, every single one of them, every single community that they're in. Oh, by the way, it's right here. Just click this button on the B.C. Housing website." At the same time, the projects listed, transition houses — all of these things are on there. I just went through that with the member.

So we can sit here and debate this for the next 25 minutes, or we can find a way to get a briefing that's meaningful for both parties and see if we can accomplish that.

J. Kwan: The minister should know, and ought to know, that as much as I would like to have been the Minister of Housing, I never was.

[1605]

In terms of the level of detail of the information, things have evolved, and things have changed. I think that this minister would be the first to agree that things haven't stayed stagnant since the NDP was in government. Things have evolved quite significantly.

So to try and get a sense of what's going on in terms of the operation within the ministry, of how it's funding the non-profits which are delivering the programs, I think, is a very valid question. I would intend to actually get down to that level of detailed information with a briefing with the minister and his staff around that.

We do only have about 25 minutes left. I have three colleagues here who have been waiting patiently to ask questions on their issues. Before I close and pass it on to them, I do want to also ask…. I will put on notice, actually, for the minister, and I will send the questions to the minister — about the Livegreen B.C. Housing's Housing Sustainability Plan.

It actually cites in here initiatives that are being provided to staff to reduce their carbon emissions, and it talks about a bike program for staff. It talks about a type of bus pass program, etc., for staff. I'd be interested in getting the details, again, of the budgeting of that and how that works within the system, within the ministry. We can sort of get into this.

It also talks about volunteerism, etc. It talks about the carbon offsets, to be carbon-neutral, and that the ministry has had to, I guess, buy carbon offsets so that it would become carbon-neutral. I would be interested to know how much was expended to ensure that it's carbon-neutral — how much, for example, was actually paid out to do that.

So this document here, called Livegreen B.C. Housing's Housing Sustainability Plan, 2012-13 — there'll be some detailed questions that I will want to ask the minister about in the briefing.

I would also ask the minister about the housing endowment fund and the allocation of that. I do have a list off the website that I printed to say where the dollars have gone, and I'm curious to know whether or not any of that funding is allocated to SROs in the Downtown Eastside community. I've heard discrepancies, although I don't see it on the list. Maybe I've missed it, or maybe it has not been allocated at all. If it has been allocated, how much has been allocated?

How much of the housing endowment fund is precommitted annually, and can the minister also advise if the list that's on the website is a complete website of all of the projects that have been committed with this fund. The website actually says that there is no more money to be expended anywhere else, because it has all been committed. Is that a fulsome list on this website that's off of the government's link?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm going to agree with the member on one thing. You bet it has changed. The most successful housing strategy in Canadian history has been in British Columbia since 2005. So 6,000 people that were homeless before are no longer homeless on the streets of British Columbia because we went and focused. We actually, in the member's own riding and in Vancouver in general, bought over 23 single-room-occupancy hotels to protect stock and renovate and upgrade them, to protect it till we could deal with that strategy.

We're building units in communities like Vancouver across British Columbia. We've addressed the seniors issue in small communities. We've built units in the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast…. I was actually at openings with him, with regards to successful projects across the province of B.C.

In addition to that, we're the first jurisdiction that stepped up said that we'll take shelters 24-7 and add meals and outreach workers so we connect people to housing with supports and to build a pretty dynamic future for housing for people that really need it in our society today.

We stepped up with the rental assistance program and expanded the SAFER program so 25,000 to 20,000 people can actually get rent assistance where they live, anywhere in British Columbia.

You bet things have changed. I'm pretty proud of it, to be honest with you. You know, we go back to the days when the member was writing a single letter about the Carl Rooms in Vancouver. We bought ten buildings. Then we bought 13 more. We have actually bought 50 buildings across the province of British Columbia to deal with housing issues on behalf of the citizens of B.C.

On top of that, we've been constructing new. On top
[ Page 962 ]
of that, we expanded the shelter program — almost tripled it from where it was in 2001. Actually, I think it's a pretty dynamic file.

[1610]

The member opposite says it has changed. You bet it changed. It actually has a focus. It's focused on the people who need it the most. That's what we're doing, and that's why we're having success on homelessness, mental health and addictions in B.C.

J. Kwan: I'm not getting into this heated debate with the minister, because it's not about rhetoric. I could actually go back and cite the Auditor General's report about, actually, the lack of accountability in the work that the government has done around housing.

I'm not going to do any of that because that's not the purpose here. I'm simply just trying to get base information from the minister so that we can assess what's going on.

I also want to ask questions about Little Mountain, to which we seem to have run out of time. Just to put a couple of the questions quickly on the record here. I'd be interested, for example, in knowing, now that the project, it seems to me, has completed…. The government says they have — according to the newspapers, anyway — yielded $300 million in return for Little Mountain. I want to get a sense of how much of that $300 million is actually revenue — so minus the land value of the site, for example.

Supposedly, I understand, there was an agreement with the city of Vancouver. I think that half of the revenue goes to the city of Vancouver. If that's the case, how does that work? Is the city of Vancouver getting a cheque for half of the revenues, or is it in return, through projects that will be developed in the city of Vancouver, as an example?

There will be a series of very detailed information that I'm requesting. Now that the bidding process is complete, the project is done, will the minister be able to release all of the bids so that we can actually see what was put forward for this project, as an example?

So these are some of the detailed questions that I'd be interested in pursuing with the minister on Little Mountain. Perhaps that's information that I can obtain also through the briefing.

N. Simons: My question relates to the Pacific autism family centre, which was announced in the throne speech of 2008 — the same month a group of people formed a society called the Pacific Autism Centre Society to receive and spend $20 million. The society is made up of legendary British Columbians, including Sergio and Wendy Cocchia and the Aquilini family.

My question is: who asked for the autism centre? Is there an independent needs assessment for that centre? What will the centre's purpose be? Who will be housed there? Have operational funding options been identified? Have contracts been put out to tender? And is there a business plan?

Hon. R. Coleman: To the member opposite: you mentioned two families. Both of those families, the individual families, have children with autism, so they have a significant interest in the future of things for autistic children.

My sister was an expert on autism and pointed me towards what they call Surrey house in Toronto as one of the examples of where you could bring together the programming for autism for an entire province. You could literally have on-line support for people in rural B.C., training and assistance. They could also come down to Vancouver. It helps them with their medical appointments and specialists and all that. It's about consolidating.

[1615]

For the member's edification, just as we get into what goes with this, I won't be able to answer most of your questions simply because we were there for the expertise around the land and location and what would fit on the land and location, which we facilitated twice.

The first time we facilitated it, the society that made the deal in Vancouver actually reneged on the deal, which caused us to go look for another site after that. Very disappointed in that organization that did it. We thought we were going to go to a location that made some sense and would tie in, in the future, to other land in the area as they moved some of their services to the new children's hospital over time.

We have found another site that works. From our involvement here, the transfer of the money was basically a Treasury Board decision, and the balance of the project is really not in the hands of this ministry.

N. Simons: For three years we've heard each ministry try to bat this into someone else's court. I'm surprised, actually, that this minister wants to do the same thing. You know, this is a $20 million commitment. It's $20 million now, when everybody's talking about our need to restrain our spending. This was a personal favour, it appears, to open up a building with no purpose identified ahead of time, no organization willing or able to move into it and three ministers saying they don't know anything about it.

It started off as a residential place, visions of a pool and rooftop garden. Then it was a place for people to come for respite. Then it was decided that the centre would be housing the existing provincial autism services and the operating cost would be covered by their ongoing budgets. Three ministers identified by the proponents — who were not consulted, by the way — have subsequently said the plan is unworkable.

Families say there are priorities in this province for services for autism. I respect the fact that people are engaged because of personal circumstances. That's important. That fuels a lot of the good changes that happen in this
[ Page 963 ]
province. But this is a government that's giving $20 million to a centre whose purpose is unknown, whose operating budget is not identified, and nobody — research or anyone — has decided that they're going to move in.

It just seems to me like no business plan, no independent assessment for needs. That, to me, does not sound like good management. I need to know — and I think that the people of the province, especially the people impacted by autism need to know — if this money is being appropriately spent. It's $20 million, now estimated at $27 million or $29 million, in fact.

I think that it is quite an important issue, because it's going to come out of other projects. Obviously, it's going to come out of other programs. Where is the $20 million going to come from?

Hon. R. Coleman: That was quite an inaccurate rant, hon. Member. I was involved in this way back at the beginning. In actual fact, the autism sector was together on this particular project, wanting an autism centre in British Columbia. Their work has been done by the board and by the group.

The member is right: it is more than $20 million. But that's because the society and other autism groups have committed to raise the balance of the money. This is a capital commitment by government to an autism centre. I don't know why anybody would be opposed to an autism centre to start to consolidate some of the services and the education and the clinical support that should be there for families with autism — in a place so they're not running all over the Lower Mainland, and it doesn't have a library or communication.

I saw the work that was done way back at the beginning of this. All I said to the member was that I'm not responsible for the autism centre within this ministry for its operations and its programming. It would make no sense, given that I'm only the Minister for Housing and I'm Minister of Natural Gas Development.

You know, the work that I saw and the groups that I met with back three, four, five years ago when this first started as a discussion…. It made a lot of sense to do this. My own research, because I have an interest in autism personally…. It made a lot of sense to me. Government decided that the society, because it was put together in a collaboration with other autism societies, would be the body that should be the vehicle to facilitate the building and operation of an autism centre for British Columbia. I think it is a good project, quite frankly.

[1620]

The reality is, you know, the project itself will be built with the society. Operating dollars will come from various levels of government with regards to autism supports and services — as well as where we put funds even in some of our post-secondary institutions with regards to autism — and directed to make this autism centre a success — to actually have a place where, universally, that information is housed and direction and referrals and stuff can take place for people with children with autism. If the member wishes to agree with that approach of trying to get there, that's entirely up to him, and I'll accept that.

N. Simons: It's not a matter of opinion as to whether or not services are adequate for families living with autism in this province. One Lower Mainland facility where organizations as yet unnamed are going to move in without, perhaps, being consulted…. I don't understand.

I just think it has been…. For $20 million, for something that in its name should be enough to make us all happy, I don't think having a building built and calling it the autism centre is going to satisfy families who have kids, who have adult children with developmental or other disabilities to any extent. The project is being driven probably by the Premier's office.

In 2009, I believe, pressure was put on the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Children and Family to request funding from the Treasury Board. The society promised to raise their own $15 million — the one society that doesn't have the buy-in from the major autism organizations. There is one, maybe, that the minister could name, but to pretend that that represents the interests of the constituency, I think, would be wrong.

Five months later, in December, a briefing note from the Minister of Health indicated that Housing and Social Development and MCFD might be submitting a request for funding. I don't understand.

Most of those briefing notes indicate that there is a distinct rolling of the eyes among the bureaucracy, because nobody has identified a need for this place, nobody identified a purpose, nobody identified a business plan, but because the name is the autism centre, it should make everybody happy because they're doing something about autism.

People want programs on the ground. People want programs in rural British Columbia. One fancy building in Vancouver and the Lower Mainland is not going to do that.

I think this needs a serious relook. I think the priorities of the budget should be going to services and programs that are actually going to have an impact and that aren't part of some sort of…. Some people have called it a vanity project. The biggest organizations in B.C. are calling it misplaced funding.

I'm glad that it is on the record now — that it's going to be a place that's going to include a library. Well, good. Then who is going to fund the library? Who is going to fund operating costs? Who is going to decide what programs go in there? It's a bit of a mess. I wonder — not to be glib, because we're not doing that here today….

Interjection.

N. Simons: I'm doing it? Well, the minister thinks I'm
[ Page 964 ]
being glib, hon. Chair. I don't think I am.

I think that when you're talking about $20 million going into a building that has a fancy name, a name that's supposed to give people in this province comfort that the government is doing something about it…. But they're not. It is an illusion. So $20 million….

We can point out that Christy Clark was given $25,000 for her leadership or that the Liberal Party has received over half a million dollars from these families that are likely going to have their plaques in the entrance lobby. Besides that, I think families in this province need to have some answers that show some substance rather than style.

Hon. R. Coleman: How dare you, Member. How dare you attack people who have children with autism that want to do something good for British Columbians because you decide that they might want a plaque somewhere. How dare you.

The reality is this, hon. Member: a lot of work was done on this. The organizations were brought together. There was extensive consultation on it. Let me ask you a question: do you want one really good children's hospital in British Columbia? If you listen to you, you wouldn't have services for children at Children's Hospital for the whole province.

Now you can have an autism centre. We have looked at the model elsewhere in North America and Canada, and in reality…. Yeah, there could be a library. There could also be clinical assessments. There could also be referrals. There could be educational programs. There could be on-line stuff into rural British Columbia so people can actually get more information on autism in one central place, to be successful for autistic children — you know?

You have decided to form an opinion about some people and bring it in here and take a shot at their personalities and their families. I don't accept that. I know some of these people. I know what they care about is children with autism. I also know that the member is going to not accept that, one way or the other.

You can't come in here and actually name a person's family, who have lived with autism and know how important it is for children with autism to try and find services for them from the province of B.C., and demean them in your comments. I won't sit here and let you do that — okay? I'm not going to let you do that.

[1625]

You can decide to disagree with me on what an autism centre should look like. I believe B.C. should have an autism centre. I think they should have one like other jurisdictions have with these resources, information, education — referrals are available in one location — so that we can actually serve the entire province and help educate regional organizations and societies and people that work with autism throughout the province by having a place that they can work through.

I think it's important. You don't have to think it's important. That's entirely up to you, and it's entirely your opinion. Do not, do not for a second, attack people who have autistic children, who absolutely care about their kids and know what they have gone through and know what friends of theirs and families have gone through with autistic children, who want to make a difference. That's all they're trying to do.

N. Simons: Thank you for that lecture. I don't think I necessarily needed it. When we're in this chamber we ask questions about important financial issues. We ask about budgets, and we expect straightforward answers. I got nothing about straightforward answers from this minister. Instead he wants to do this holier-than-thou thing as if I'm picking on families. I'm not picking on families. I'm talking about the needs of our community members out there in British Columbia. It's not for something like a…. It's not a one-stop shop. It's not a place for assessment. It's not a place for respite. This minister is making it up as he goes along, for the record.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan: I'll yield the floor to the member for Surrey-Whalley, actually, who has got just a couple of quick questions to ask the minister about some constituency case.

B. Ralston: I understand that there is an agreement that we would adjourn this section at 4:30, so I think I'll have time for the one question.

My concern relates to a rental property at 12975 106 Avenue, Kwantlen Park Manor. It was the subject of the first administrative penalty under the Residential Tenancy Act. I have a number of questions that relate. Some, admittedly, might stray into policy, so I will endeavour to focus this. This may be the subject…. Given the time, I'll probably have to resort to a written letter to put the questions to the minister.

But what took place there…. The landlords who own this property are notorious slum landlords. I think that's fair to say. This property was the subject of ongoing disputes. A tenant advocate was issued an eviction notice at least six times. In a decision of the dispute resolution services: "The landlord is warned that her threatening and harassing behaviour will not be tolerated in a hearing and that baseless accusations of this nature may result in penalties as provided by section 95(4) of the act. The landlord is warned that repeated attempts to evict a tenant without cause may form a loss of quiet enjoyment, to which the tenant has a right as provided by section 28, which may result in monetary compensation."

I think that the landlord's reputation is well established as one of the worst landlords in the province. An administrative penalty, after much donated legal work, was assessed. Under the act there is a provision that rather than
[ Page 965 ]
force the landlord to pay that, there can be a negotiation, and that's what took place in this case.

Can the minister explain the process that the branch went through in the negotiation? Why was that option chosen rather than enforcing the administrative penalty?

Secondly, I further understand that branch staff refused to entertain a second administrative penalty application while the first one was still in protracted negotiations. Ultimately, no protection for the tenants was achieved. They were all ultimately evicted somewhat later on.

The property was notorious for a number of violations of basic living conditions, including water egress, bugs and just generally being uninhabitable. Yet all through that process, the landlord continued to demand and receive rent.

[1630]

It raises broader policy questions, and I appreciate that future legislation is not a proper subject of this process. So given the time, perhaps I can just ask the minister if he would at least acknowledge this property, and I will endeavour to place my further questions in written form.

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, I don't think you have to give me a written form. We'll take it from Hansard here — the issues. What we'll try and do is give you a chronology of events and how that decision-making process was done and what the outcomes expected were with regards to it. We'll get that summarized for the member.

S. Robinson: I really appreciate having just a couple of minutes to ask a single question that I have here. I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development some questions about her service report. One of them, actually, she directed me to come and ask this minister about. So I'm just following up based on those estimates.

In this document it talks about: "Local governments are implementing strategies to improve community sustainability." One of the strategies is to: "Encourage local governments to develop effective approaches to increase the supply of affordable entry-level market housing near transit."

So I just wanted to ask the minister what the plan is around this and what resources will be used to encourage local governments to develop effective approaches to increase the supply of affordable entry-level market housing near transit.

[M. Dalton in the chair.]

Hon. R. Coleman: This one I could give you a 30-minute answer on, but I'm not going to, obviously. But the reality is this. Affordability in housing is often driven by municipalities with vision. There are some that have it and some that don't.

In some areas of Surrey they have it. Affordable housing in Surrey, in the Clayton area, Clayton Heights, which I talked about earlier in these debates…. They decided to allow for coach houses, which were the ability to have a unit above the garage, and allowed for legal suites in the basement of houses that were being built in that area of the jurisdiction.

Rents in that area were $1,250 three or four years ago. They're now around $875, $850. The other thing, though — the affordability factor — that came out of that is the young people buying the home were now able to have a secondary income to help them buy the house. The rent coming from the suite or the coach house was actually to offset the affordability factor in them being able to own a particular home.

I've always believed that the airspace and the area around transit needs to be more maximized, not just for…. Obviously, that space is being used for one public convenience, but it's also pretty convenient to live beside or above the SkyTrain stations. I've always believed that in the planning we should be doing it.

We have communities that work with that, and we have communities that don't. We have communities that say: "We don't want density in those areas." We're saying: "Well, why would you want a transit path to go one way and not provide the opportunity for density?"

In my own community, where we have the new rapid bus, we have a parking lot in addition to the rapid bus. You can be over the Port Mann Bridge in about 18 minutes to a SkyTrain station, and then connect into the entire transit in the Lower Mainland. We've actually taken land in and around that and reserved it for the purposes of future affordable and rental housing, as we find a partner to do that as we go forward.

There are all kinds of innovative opportunities with regard to this. Even as I look at community plans with regards to other expansions and industrial use, I look in B.C. outside the Lower Mainland, bringing these ideas to the forefront for people to start to look at how they handle their density, their affordability to get there.

Now, the biggest cost outside of the construction of a home in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia is municipal costs. It's input costs. It's development costs charges. It's other landscaping requirements. It's form and design that sometimes isn't practical relative to the affordability of the housing at all.

Municipalities need to work together and with us to actually find those solutions as well, because you can't put $100,000 at the front end of a home and say, "Give us affordable housing," when none of it has actually gone into the ground and created a stick of land purchase or the building of a building.

That's why, when we do the things like with the housing strategy, we went to the community and said: "If you're prepared to give us land and lower some of our costs, we can deliver more for communities across B.C.
[ Page 966 ]
for people in need and affordable housing and rentals." That's why we believe that that's the plan.

[1635]

J. Kwan: As we wrap up this set of estimates, I just want to put this last number of constituency cases on the public record very quickly. I'll be passing along the detailed information. Letters have already been written to the minister, but I've not heard back, so I'd just like to sort of follow up on it.

We already dealt earlier with the woman who is fleeing violence. I'll wait to receive further information from the minister on that — noting, though, that the end of the month is coming very quickly with respect to that.

I have another situation with another constituent who has a heart condition and is recovering from open-heart surgery, which forced her to move from Kitimat to Vancouver to seek medical treatment. She also is hearing-impaired, has breast cancer and surgery related to that.

She applied to B.C. Housing in May 2013, and we have written to the minister about this. We're still waiting to get her situation addressed.

Another situation where a woman with four children is widowed. Her spouse recently died, six months ago. She's living in a transition house at the moment. Of course, as the minister knows, there is the 30-day limitation, and that's coming rapidly. Then she's also faced with a challenge around that.

Another constituent, who's on PWD, suffered a stroke for three years. Her SRO unit has consistently been infested with rats and bedbugs and the like, and she recently was attacked by an ex-partner and spent three days in the hospital. She's looking, obviously, to get safer housing accommodations.

I have a case of another constituent, who suffered a stroke three years ago, resulting in decreased mobility, fatigue, a whole variety of mental health needs as well and financial hardship. Applied for B.C. housing since 2001, reapplied in 2007 and has been waiting for affordable housing ever since that time. Again, that's an urgent situation.

Another constituent is seeking safe, affordable housing. He shares custody of his daughter and applied for housing since 2011. We've also written to the minister about this, but to no avail.

I will detail all this information to the minister by way of a letter, if he could ask his staff to follow up on those situations.

Finally, there's a new case that just landed on my desk about a woman who apparently has a rent supplement agreement with the ministry from some years ago. Because her landlord has moved, she's now forced to relocate, but the rent supplement that is provided to her has decreased from the amount that she needs in order to secure housing there.

It's a big, thick file. I'll pass that on to the minister, and then maybe the minister can deal with her directly in trying to resolve that, or have his staff try and look into this situation and resolve that.

With that, I am looking forward to the briefing with the minister and following up with some of the other issues that we did not get a chance to canvass during this set of estimates. I will thank the minister for his time, for his staff's as well, and I will look forward to some of the information that the minister has committed to providing to me post–estimates debate.

Vote 39: ministry operations, $15,694,000 — approved.

Vote 40: housing, $343,866,000 — approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: Chair, I move that we have a five-minute recess while we change out staff and ministers.

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

The committee recessed from 4:39 p.m. to 4:43 p.m.

[M. Dalton in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

(continued)

On Vote 32: Attorney General operations, $368,402,000 (continued).

The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?

Hon. S. Anton: I'd like to introduce the staff accompanying me today. Ms. Lori Wanamaker, Deputy Solicitor General; Karen Ayers, assistant deputy minister, liquor control and licensing branch; Blain Lawson, general manager and CEO, Liquor Distribution Branch; Tara Faganello, assistant deputy minister and executive financial officer; and David Hoadley, chief financial officer.

I did make opening remarks yesterday. I will not repeat them again today and look forward, instead, to the questions from the hon. members opposite.

S. Simpson: Thanks to the minister and her staff.

As we know, we have a short period of time to deal with these issues related to liquor and to the liquor control and licensing branch and the Liquor Distribution Branch. I guess the first thing I'd like to say is that I anticipate it's possible we're not going to make it all the way through the questions. I would hope the minister would entertain any questions that I don't get through — I'll put them in writing and send them to the minister — and that she'll have a response in writing from herself and her appropriate officials. I hope she would concur with that.

[1645]

The first question I have relates to staffing at the senior
[ Page 967 ]
levels, management-level staffing. Could the minister tell us if there have been any changes in staffing in the last 12 months and also whether there have been any changes in the remuneration or bonuses for senior staff in either of the branches?

Hon. S. Anton: The only change has been the hiring of Mr. Blain Lawson, who replaced our former CEO, and he has come in at the same salary.

S. Simpson: I have a question in regard to an RFP that has been out there for a while. I believe the RFP was for a supply chain and logistics management expert, who I believe was to assist with the sale of the Broadway property.

It appears that the selection process has now been delayed. I believe it was going to be July 15; there was going to be a selection there. I now understand that that has been delayed further. Could the minister tell us, first of all, what is the purpose of this expert or experts who are to be retained, and why has this request for proposal been delayed for an extended period?

Hon. S. Anton: The position is for an expert on warehousing supply chain. The position was to close on the 15th of July. There was very significant interest in the position, and there were a number of questions raised by the applicants. So information was, I gather, sent out again. It seemed beneficial to everyone to delay it, so it has been delayed to the first of August. It's a minor delay, and the intention of the position remains the same.

S. Simpson: So I can be clear — because I don't know a lot about this position, but I find it's an interesting one — is this the hiring of somebody to come in and work with the ministry, or is it the hiring of a consultancy to come in and be working and providing advice? What is the nature of this position, and what support are they providing to, presumably, this transition period related to this move?

[1650]

Hon. S. Anton: The position is a consulting position. It is for one year, with a possible six-month extension or extensions. It is to help the organization make better decisions around warehousing of the products.

S. Simpson: When the minister talks about making better decisions about the warehousing of the products, could the minister give us a sense of what the scope of that is? What are we talking about?

I'll kind of get to the point here. We know that the government was actively pursuing privatization of the distribution system a while back. That was set aside, that decision. I'm trying to determine whether there are correlations between the objectives that were hoped to be achieved through that privatization and the move of the Broadway facility, which presumably provides a catalyst for this decision. I'm trying to get a sense of what that means in terms of what the thinking is around those changes.

Hon. S. Anton: I think what the member is seeking is sort of the bigger picture. Indeed, this is about the decision to sell the Broadway warehouse, that old warehouse. It is old. It does not meet the current standards. For example, the ceilings are too low. The building is old.

It's not a suitable facility any longer, so the decisions the consultant is making will be around the best location for a new facility. They'll be looking at the kind of technology a new facility needs and, just generally, the thinking and advice around the new facility for liquor distribution.

S. Simpson: The minister talked about the date moving to August 1 or sometime shortly, in the next few weeks. Could the minister tell us, first of all: is that the date for awarding of a contract, or is it a date for short-listing at that point? If, in fact, a shortlist has been accomplished at this point, if there is a shortlist, I wonder if the minister….

I know when the privatization option was on the table, the minister of the day and the ministry released the shortlist of those four proponents, I believe, who were put on the shortlist, who were then provided the opportunity to further advance their proposals. That shortlist was provided with the four companies that were on that list.

Will the minister release the shortlist for those who have been put on the list? Or if August 1 is the shortlist date, will they release the list when, in fact, that shortlist is in place for this position?

[1655]

Hon. S. Anton: August 1 is the closing date for applicants. It is not a shortlist date. A shortlist will be developed internally within approximately 30 days after the first of August, but that will not be released. The applicant will be chosen from that shortlist after that time, but it will not be a public list as to who is on the shortlist.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us why the decision was made not to release that list, when clearly, the past practice has been the release of those lists, as it was in the case of the four companies looking at the privatization option?

Hon. S. Anton: This is a single-stage RFP. It is different from the process that the hon. member is referring to. That was a negotiated multi-stage RFP, and that was to find an outsource provider, which was a process that was cancelled.

In fact, the decision has now been made to sell the Broadway warehouse and to relocate to a new warehouse.
[ Page 968 ]
The process is underway right now to hire the consultant to help with that, but it is different from the applications and the applicants that were in the process last year.

S. Simpson: Maybe we'll just stick with the Broadway property for a moment. Could the minister tell us what the status of the sale of the property is at this point?

[1700]

Hon. S. Anton: The process at the moment is that there is due diligence going on, on the Broadway site to establish what the expected value is for the proposed sale. It will go up for sale in the fall of this year after the due diligence process is completed.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us: is the sale of the Broadway property — I believe that the record shows it is the sale of the Broadway property — part of the asset sale that the government has in place to balance the budget? Is that, in fact, the case? Has it been factored into the budget for this current fiscal year as a sale for this year?

Hon. S. Anton: It is not in the list of assets for sale in this fiscal year that the hon. member is referring to.

S. Simpson: So it's on the list for next year?

Hon. S. Anton: The expectation is that it will be sold this year. It will not, therefore, be on a list for next year.

S. Simpson: Maybe I'll just step back the question a bit. If the minister is saying the expectation is that it will be sold in this fiscal year and that it's not on the list, then am I to assume that the sale of this property…?

We know that its valuation at one point was about $30 million, give or take. That doesn't include a parking lot that's probably valued at about $1½ million and an office building that's attached to it that's valued at $4½ million or so. Then, of course, there's the LDB headquarters, which may or may not be up for sale either. Who knows?

We've got a pretty significant piece of property here. If you put those pieces together, it's something that's at least $36 million to $37 million or so, give or take the market. Is the minister saying that that's not going to be one of the properties that is contemplated in balancing the budget?

Hon. S. Anton: I would observe that this is not a surplus asset because a warehouse is needed. Although it may show up as a net gain in the financials of the Liquor Distribution Branch — in fact, it will if it's sold — there is still the requirement to go out and find a new warehouse. That is why it's not showing up on the list of surplus assets that the hon. member is referring to.

S. Simpson: In 2013 the June budget update was released by government. In that update it included the relocation of the distribution centre in 2013-14 as part of "filling the deficit gap."

A chart was produced in that report — chart 1.1, "Filling the deficit gap" — and it lays out a deficit. As a note to the chart, it says: "In 2013-14, includes the impacts of the Little Mountain sale and relocating the Liquor Distribution Branch warehouse."

Maybe the minister could tell me whether this was not accurate in the June budget update.

[1705]

Hon. S. Anton: The Liquor Distribution Branch financials are consolidated in the provincial financials, so if there's a gain on the sale, that will indeed go to the province's bottom line. The question the hon. member posed was: was this one of the surplus assets listed? The answer to that question was no. But if there is a surplus on the sale, yes, indeed, that goes to the bottom line of the province.

S. Simpson: Well, presumably the asset will be sold. That will be a capital issue. It's taking a property, and it will be sold, and there will be capital coming out of that. Unless the Liquor Distribution Branch is looking at purchasing a new facility versus, say, a lease arrangement…. Maybe that's the question. Is it the expectation of the LDB that they are going to purchase a new property? Or are they going to lease a new facility, in which case, it presumably becomes an operating cost?

Hon. S. Anton: The hon. member is asking the same question that the branch is posing to itself: what is the best route forward? Should it be a purchase, or should it be a lease? That, indeed, is what the consultant is being hired to give his or her advice on. What is in the best interest of the province? What makes the best business sense for the branch? Where should it go? All those very interesting questions are what the consultant will be assisting with.

S. Simpson: I have a question in regard to the IT system upgrades at the LDB. My understanding is that there has been a significant update in play. I believe it's been labelled the financial business improvement project. Its purpose was to streamline business and financial processes and improve the accuracy of inventory and financial transaction data.

I have heard — and I'd be happy to get some specifics on this — that there have been some challenges with this particular system. Could the minister tell us what the status of that system and that system upgrade is and what the cost of that is projected to be at completion and how that might differ from the projected costs when the system was purchased?

[1710]

Hon. S. Anton: The software that the member is referring to is, as he mentioned, the financial business improvement project. That project is, in fact, finished. It was completed 18 months ago. It's integrated into the functioning of the organization, and it's functioning properly. If there's more information needed as to costs and so on, I'll have to take that on notice because it was done over a year ago. We do not have that information here today.

S. Simpson: I'd be happy to get that information at some point from the minister, and I thank her for that offer.

I want to move back just to a question or two in relation to the privatization of the LDB and the state of the decision to step away from that privatization process.

Now, as I understand it, there were four companies that, at the end of the day, were short-listed. Kuehne and Nagel, ContainerWorld, Exel and Metro were the short-listed companies for the warehouse and distribution privatization. We know that, essentially, that process was terminated about two business days before the final proposals were due to government. It was terminated, and we'll get to this question a little bit afterwards, during the process of some contract negotiations with the BCGEU.

The question I have is this. As the minister's predecessor had said to me when we discussed these matters prior to this, it was a very complex process. The government had put a series of limitations in place for the applicants around price, around service. They essentially were being obliged to provide most enhanced services without increasing costs to consumers. That was the objective that the minister's predecessor laid out to me. This was a complicated business.

All of these companies, the four that got short-listed, presumably invested some money in getting their proposals together. The decision was made, two days before those proposals were due, to terminate the process.

The question I have for the minister is: was there any form of compensation paid to those companies for their efforts and the work that they did, being that the process terminated not due to them but due to other matters related to the government? Was there any form of compensation given or paid to any of those four companies?

Hon. S. Anton: There was no compensation paid.

S. Simpson: Just to be clear, then, no compensation paid. So any expenses that were incurred by any of those companies in the process of developing their proposals — they ate those costs themselves, and none of those costs are reflected by taxpayers in any way?

Hon. S. Anton: There was no coverage of costs and no cost to taxpayers.

S. Simpson: At the time that that proposal was terminated…. It happened during the negotiations with the BCGEU. They were in the middle of contract negotiations, and there was certainly some speculation that it was one of the carrots put on the table, because the BCGEU had not been supportive of the privatization.

[1715]

I believe they had received some assurances around protection of their members, but they had not been supportive of that privatization process. In the collective bargaining process, sometimes things get put on the table. There was speculation as to whether the decision to withdraw the privatization scheme, in fact, was one of the things that was put on the table. It may or may not have been.

When I look at the conversation that was had, again, with the minister's predecessor, the minister's predecessor was pretty emphatic in saying: "We're looking at this. We're contemplating this. We're doing an analysis. And unless we have evidence that this, in fact, is going to be a positive gain for taxpayers and consumers and government, we're not going to do it."

I take the minister and the minister's predecessor at their word that there was some assessment done there that led to a determination two days before the close of proposals that in fact this process didn't have the value that the minister was looking for to make it worthwhile to privatize the LDB, essentially — the Liquor Distribution Branch. I'm assuming that that was discovered at some point.

Could the minister tell us: was there, in fact, an assessment done of that process — to make the decision to step away from that process? Was there an assessment done to satisfy what the minister said was going to be a pretty hard-nosed look at whether this thing made sense?

Hon. S. Anton: At that time the…. I think the member's question suggests that it might have been the whole branch that was being considered. I would like to emphasize that it was the warehousing and distribution piece of the branch under question at that time, not the bigger operation. Because the final proposals actually had not come in, there was, in fact, no assessment of the final proposals.

S. Simpson: We're aware of that. Time and time again I think folks on this side suggested to the minister that there was no rationale for the economics of doing this. There was no business plan. The minister may recall that we asked numerous times for a business plan, or any kind of plan, and it never was able to be provided. So we assume no plan existed. Now we know that there was no assessment done to evaluate why to walk away from the contract.

Maybe the minister could tell us: why did the government choose to terminate the process two days before the
[ Page 970 ]
proposals were due? What was the reason for doing that?

[1720]

Hon. S. Anton: I apologize for the short delay there. Staff have readily at hand the materials for this fiscal year. This is actually in the last fiscal year, so they had to do a little bit of searching there.

The reason it was cancelled was indeed because a collective agreement had been reached, so the RFP was cancelled.

S. Simpson: The minister is saying the sole reason for walking away from that privatization process was the collective bargaining agreement with the BCGEU, and there was nothing else that influenced that decision?

Hon. S. Anton: That is all that anyone here is aware of as a reason.

S. Simpson: I'll just take the minister at her word on that. Thank you for that.

A question about pricing. Back, again, last year — I guess around the time that process was going on — the minister's predecessor was advancing this argument about one wholesale price and talking about what was a pretty significant change in pricing.

I'll quote the minister's predecessor. This was in February of last year on the radio, and this was in regard to one price:

"Making this move, I think we also have to shift to one wholesale price for all people that sell liquor in the province of B.C. Right now we have a staggered system where there is the wholesale price that goes into the distribution system itself, which is to a hundred-and-some-odd government liquor stores, where they have a set price at their store. The private liquor stores get their liquor sold to them at a 16 percent discount to whatever the price is in the government liquor store, and then you have rural agency stores that actually get liquor at a 10 percent discount to the retail price."

We may get a chance to talk more about what the impact of this is. My question though, to the minister, is: is the thinking about a new pricing system and a one-wholesale-price system still something that the ministry is considering, or has that gone by the wayside?

[1725]

Hon. S. Anton: The question of one wholesale price did get assessed at the time, and the assessment concluded that there would be significant impacts. There would be winners and losers. It would have been extremely disruptive to the industry and very complicated, so the decision was made not to go there. The question of "should we try again at this point?" is not under consideration at this point.

S. Simpson: Has there been an evaluation? Obviously, there was a lot of discussion around that. We know modernization is in play, and I'm hoping we'll get a chance to maybe talk a little bit about that in a bit.

It would be helpful…. There were both advocates and people who were opposed to the notion of one wholesale price, and many people who, as the minister said, thought that it could be particularly disruptive — and maybe particularly disruptive for the government stores. Is there any written evaluation available that the minister could make available? Or would it be something that we'll have to FOI?

Hon. S. Anton: The staff who are here with me and who are thinking back over the process do believe that some of this material has been publicly released and is on the website. We will confirm that, and if there's any change to that, we will get back to the hon. member. Not everything was public, because some of it was proprietary information and did, necessarily, need to be kept private.

S. Simpson: I'm glad to hear that the one wholesale price is off the table at this point in time.

[1730]

Just moving back a little bit to other assets. We know we've talked about the Broadway property. Could the minister tell us whether there are any other properties or assets held by the branch that are, in fact, up for sale — other than, obviously, the Broadway property?

Hon. S. Anton: I think the answer to that is that the only sales contemplated are what you might almost call routine, in the normal course of business. The Smithers store changed locations. One was sold; another was purchased. The other known property is the Esquimalt store. Pursuant to a treaty, it will be turned over to the First Nations.

I don't have the name, but in any event, I think that will be the answer my friend is looking for.

S. Simpson: Currently there are, I think, 197 government stores, outlets, across the province, give or take — I'm sure the minister can correct me if I'm wrong — and just under 700 private stores in the province, more or less. Could the minister tell us whether there are any plans to either increase or decrease the number of government stores that are in the province and what the plans are around allowing more private stores?

I understand that if private stores close, that's up to the private operators. That's their business. But there have been limits in the past. I know the cap got lifted, I believe. Is there a plan to allow additional private stores in the province, and what is the thinking about those numbers?

Hon. S. Anton: There are — the member had the numbers pretty much correct — 195 government liquor stores, 670 private stores. There are no plans to increase the number of government stores.

Are there plans to allow more private? Currently the number of private stores, by regulation, is subject to a
[ Page 971 ]
ten-year moratorium, until 2022.

[1735]

S. Simpson: So almost another eight, nine years — something like that — before we see private stores, unless there's a policy change. That's what I got from the minister. I see some head-nodding over there, so I'll take that.

A question around audits. We know many government agencies and Crowns have been reviewed in the last couple of years or so. I think we've seen that with ICBC. B.C. Hydro seems to do it about every six or eight months. So it's happening pretty regularly. Have there been any audits or reviews of the liquor system, the LDB and that, in the last year or so? Are there any anticipated in the coming year — reviews, audits, those kinds of looks that have been contemplated or, in fact, completed with other Crown agencies or Crown corporations?

Hon. S. Anton: There are no audits that the team here is aware of, other than the regular audits of government financial statements that are done in the regular course of government business.

S. Simpson: None have been done in the last year or so, and none are contemplated moving forward — at this time, anyway? That's fair?

Hon. S. Anton: None have been done in the last year, and none are contemplated at the moment.

S. Simpson: Does the minister anticipate that the branch and the agency will be captured in the core review and that there will be some work done related to the core review?

Hon. S. Anton: We don't have the instructions yet or the process yet around core review. That will be coming. The liquor control and licensing and liquor distribution are, of course, part of government, so therefore, they would be part of the contemplation for review. We don't sense that there's any special attention being paid to them, but the core review is a pretty broad process. I think it remains to be seen how liquor will fit into that process.

S. Simpson: I guess I would just say to the minister that any entity that gives general revenue a billion dollar a year might get a look. A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about serious money. Clearly, liquor distribution and the liquor branch is a pretty important contributor to government revenues.

I want to ask about the minister's mandate letter. It's point 14, I believe, in the mandate letter, which says that the minister will "consider and present options to convert the LDB into either a Crown agency or Crown corporation with its own board of directors."

Could the minister tell us what the thinking of government is about why that model, that structure, might make sense for this particular entity of government.

[1740]

Hon. S. Anton: I have been asked to look at the organizational structure. As the member observes, it's in my mandate letter. I would note that every jurisdiction in Canada except British Columbia — including the Territories — has some form of Crown corporation for distribution. So it does seem natural that we should look at it. I think it's a good idea to do that. The actual thinking has not gone…. As to why, it's something that we're looking at. I think as we go down this road, we will have more analysis as to why and what the best format of the distribution will be.

S. Simpson: I have had the opportunity certainly to look at most of the jurisdictions across the country. There are a variety of ways that this is approached. Crown corporations are some, agencies are others, and other people do it in different ways. I don't see that in itself as being a particular issue. But as the minister will know with these things, the devil is always in the details when you do this kind of thing. So we're going to talk a little bit about that.

Could the minister tell us, then, what kinds of reforms are even contemplated here? What happens today with the LDB as it is currently structured that would be different than what would happen if it was structured as a Crown or an agency with its own independent board? What is different about what goes on today versus that, and what could that new structure do or provide that isn't available under the current structure?

Hon. S. Anton: The mandate letter itself, of course, requests that I look at the option of transitioning the Liquor Distribution Branch to a Crown agency or Crown corporation. It's premature to even discuss the analysis of that. That's work that is underway. It's just starting to get underway in the ministry.

If the member would like to ask this question six months from now, I would probably have a much more complete answer. But it is rather preliminary at the moment.

There's no question that other provinces have different models. It is worth looking at all of those models, determining the pros and cons of them, doing some analysis and determining what the best option is for British Columbia.

S. Simpson: You never know. I might ask the questions again in six months after there's a new budget in February. You never know.

[1745]

With this process, though, does the minister have a timeline in terms of expectation about when options might go forward, presumably to cabinet? Is there a time-
[ Page 972 ]
line? Is there any sense of direction?

I ask this because we know, of course, that the mandate letters were provided, and they had some very specific but pretty brief discussion around what the expectations are. Then there's reference to the additional information that was afforded to ministers. I have no idea what that was. I assumed it might provide, flesh out, some of that direction in what were fairly brief letters, couple-page letters.

Could the minister tell us: is there a timeline for getting options or a report to cabinet on the question of restructuring?

Hon. S. Anton: The timeline in the mandate is over the coming years, which does not suggest that we wish to dilly-dally over this. It is, as I said earlier, a project which is just getting started. Until more analysis is done, it's very difficult to predict even what the timeline will be.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us how the consultation process is going to evolve? Who's going to be part of the conversation around it? What is the consultation going to look like for the minister and her officials as they try to capture enough information to make that assessment?

Hon. S. Anton: This is a decision about government structure. The discussions are at the officials level. Obviously, there are lots of inquiries as to what other provinces do and so on, but in terms of a general public consultation, there will not be one.

S. Simpson: Just so I can be clear, there's going to be no public discussion.

Now, there are people who will be affected by this, potentially. I think about the industry. I think about the people who are making liquor. I think about the people who are selling liquor. I think about the people who are working for the branch.

There is a variety of potential interests. I think about the folks like the ContainerWorlds and others who have interests here. Are they going to be consulted in some fashion, and how is that process going to work? How are the stakeholders that are legitimate, if the public isn't one of those, going to be talked to about the potential of these changes and how they will affect the relationships that those groups have with the branch?

[1750]

Hon. S. Anton: How government structures itself is a decision of government itself. The organizational structure of the Liquor Distribution Branch and the reporting relationship with government is not something we consult on, which is not to say that we don't have, in the branch, conversations with stakeholders every single day. Of course there are. But in terms of the organization of government, that is really the prerogative of government to do that. That's what is happening here.

S. Simpson: Frankly, it's not the prerogative of government to sit in a bubble and not talk to people. That's what the minister is saying here. The reality is this: there's a whole array of people, including consumers potentially, who are impacted by this. This is particularly true if you create….

The devil is in the details with Crowns. I can look at the Crowns across this province, and they operate very differently — how B.C. Hydro operates versus Ferries, versus ICBC, versus others. You create a Crown with a board. Depending on the authority that you give to that board, they determine things like pricing. They determine other matters — which may be absolutely the appropriate thing for them to do. I don't question that at all.

But there are a lot of people out there who are potentially impacted by that — consumers, business owners, private stores, people who work for distributors. There are a variety of potential people who are impacted by that, including local communities, depending on the relationship of the LDB and how it distributes and how this weds with modernization. We'll hopefully have a few minutes to talk a little bit about that in a second.

This isn't in isolation. At the end of the day, the government will make whatever decision it wants, and it will pass whatever legislation it wants, and it will create whatever entity it wants. That's government's prerogative, and nobody questions that.

Certainly, the government has no right to simply arbitrarily go and make radical changes without at least having a conversation with somebody. You can choose to ignore what you hear. That's just fine. But you have to at least be prepared to talk to people.

The minister spent a lot of time in local government and as a local councillor. She would know well about the need to consult. I know that the minister, as a local councillor…. I could probably think of many times when she stood up in council or in the media and chastised the council of the day around a lack of consultation. The minister would do that at times when she was sitting as a councillor.

The question here is how you are going to talk to the people — not the public, not necessarily the guy who says, "You're going to add a nickel to my beer, and I don't like it" — who are really affected, whose livelihoods are affected by this, whose businesses are affected. How do they get to be a part of this conversation?

It's starting to buzz now, because here it is in the mandate that has been given to the minister by the Premier. That's clear. We know the minister is moving ahead to fulfil the mandate and obligation she's been given by the Premier. That's the right thing to do.

[1755]

How do those people be part of this conversation?
[ Page 973 ]
How do you ensure it happens in a way that isn't entirely transparent — because I respect the fact that government has to make decisions and protect its interests — but that people know this was a process was okay regardless of what the result is?

Hon. S. Anton: The relationship between the branch and the stakeholders is a very close one. They're in close communication all the time. There are conversations every single day. There are opinions heard every day. There are letters to myself, as minister, to the branch and so on. Those opinions are all heard. But what we're not going to do here is a formal consultation process. That is not planned.

I would like to emphasize that the government at the moment sets standards for the Liquor Distribution Branch through its shareholder's letter. That's done every single year. It's not anticipated that that process will change. No matter what the structure at the top is, there will still be expectations from government to whatever the organization is as to the expectations for that organization.

S. Simpson: You know, that might be exactly the fact, the point, here. I think it is true. I've talked to a number of people in the industry. In large part — not entirely — I think most of them do feel that they have a reasonably good working relationship with the branch and the ability to have those discussions and to work at that level.

I suspect their concern is whether significant change might in fact affect that relationship that's been built now and how that relationship may be affected if they're dealing with a different structure that includes a board. They'll also be, clearly — if that is the structure that the government lands on at the end of the day…. I understand that that's speculative.

[1800]

The composition of that board. Who's there, who those people are, who the chair of the board is — all of those things bring into play a different dynamic than one that today has a branch of government and a minister, where they know, at the end of the day, that they can always come and talk to the minister or to the directors of the branch. But then they can go to the minister.

You put a board of directors in there, and you change the dynamic. You just have to look at the operations of folks like Ferries, and you can see that those changes are meaningful in terms of how people are affected who have important relationships with the government entity. The structure of the government entity does impact those relationships.

So I hear the minister. I'm not going to flog this one, but I would urge the minister to make sure that there are conversations there. At the end of the day, whatever legislation falls out, that will be a debate. The minister will be on firmer ground if she's done a little bit of that work when the time comes. We'll see when that time comes.

I want to move on. Just a couple more things here that I want to deal with. One relates to the craft industries. I have, I think, in my constituency now four craft brewers and a craft distiller about to open in a small area in Vancouver, in my community.

They're growing across the province. You're seeing more and more recognition. More and more, when you go to beverage outlets, what you're seeing is a move from — at least with some, with taps and that — what would be the Labatt's, Sleeman, Molson folks over to craft beers that are made locally in British Columbia, beers that are of a high quality. You're starting to see growing interest around that, which has the potential to impact business like tourism.

You just have to go down to Portland and look at what Portland has done with its craft industries, where it actually has become a tourism draw for folks to come down and deal with that.

I attended a celebration of the craft industry here in Vancouver, and it was remarkable. I went to this event at a facility. There must have been 1,000 people there and all of these breweries. People were having a good time, and people were exchanging information.

It's an industry that's in its formative stages, but it absolutely is growing. It absolutely is starting to take hold. Changes that were made by the government around tied houses and some of those have helped that along. They've been positive and they've been good changes.

I think we only need to look back to the initiatives around wine and VQA and the efforts that were made around product placement and other issues with B.C. wines, which have now grown this into a very, very important industry for us in a whole bunch of ways — very successful. Everything about it has gone right — including, I would suggest, driving significant tourism, particularly into the Okanagan, with people who go on wine tours and want to deal with that.

Interjection.

S. Simpson: There you go. The member there would agree. It's been a big positive.

I know lots of people who will come to British Columbia. If they've got a few days to jump in the car and go on a wine tour and pick up a couple of cases of wine along the way, they love to do it before they drive back to wherever they're going — all positive. All about that is positive.

I see the potential to at least look hard at whether we can begin to — maybe not have that level of success in the short term but — build the craft beer industry in the same way and maybe create some opportunities for some craft distillers. We have some, like Victoria Gin and a few others, and it's growing. It's percolating, and there's more expertise coming into play in all of that.
[ Page 974 ]

So the question I have for the minister is: is there any thinking going on within the branches about ways to work with that sector to create better opportunities for them to grow the way that we worked to create the success that we've seen with B.C. wine?

[1805]

I'm thinking about things like decisions around product placement in stores, around promotion, around any number of things — the people that the minister has sitting around her are way wiser about this than I'll ever be — around what those pieces may look like.

So if the minister could tell us a little bit about whether she's considered that or she's had any discussions, or her officials have, with the sector — and whether we might expect there's an opportunity there to build this craft sector and the jobs and opportunity that come with it.

Hon. S. Anton: The mandate of this government, of course, is to grow jobs and the economy. Clearly, the interest in craft distilleries and made-in-B.C. products is an important part of that — so much so that the branch created a policy in the spring of this year which is similar to the policy around wine, which is to encourage craft distilleries. It will be a 100 percent B.C. product, and the product can be sold direct to consumers with no markup, in the same way that B.C. wine is sold.

In terms of marketing the products from the craft distilleries, there is a September and October made-in-B.C. promotion in the government's stores, in which the sale of all of these products is encouraged, supported and pushed, one may say. Consumers are encouraged to partake of the B.C. products in our government liquor stores.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that, and I'm glad to hear about the September-October plan. I'm sure that the people who are owners of these facilities…. I mean, I look at the ones in my constituency. I've toured them, and I've looked at them.

Parallel 49 is growing now and doing it all right and starting to have success. From the time they opened…. I remember going in there when they were first putting in the vats and getting it ready. They hadn't produced a glass of beer yet. They were still trying to get it ready and figure out how to make the bottling machine work right, etc. Now they've doubled their size in no time, and they're going to grow again.

[1810]

They're remarkably successful. They're now working and able to work with others.

Then you have people who are very successful, like Driftwood and a number of other breweries, particularly here on the Island. There is a number of very successful ones on the south Island.

So I really would encourage…. I'm glad to hear that. I'm glad to hear that that's the decision there. I would hope that in that process — and maybe it's a good discussion to have — the minister or officials would have some discussion with the craft beer industry. They seem to be the one that's a little farther along than the distillers right now — the beer industry.

They actually are growing an association here that's becoming more sophisticated. I know I met them the first time, and the folks around that. I met them — a couple of beer drinkers, in the back of St. Augustine's in my constituency, having a beer — to have them explain this industry to me for the first time. I never knew what Fat Tug was. Now I know, and it's a heck of a good beer.

I do hope that maybe there will be some room for some discussion with the association about what can be done and what makes sense, moving forward, that is doable for the branch, acceptable to the minister and that the industry can contribute to, to advance their own cause.

They're certainly bound and determined to grow and be successful. They're prepared to make the investment to do that and put their money and their skin in the game. They just want an opportunity to succeed. Obviously, the work that's done by the branch is going to be hugely important to their ability to succeed.

I'm glad to hear what the minister is talking about, but I hope there'll be a meaningful discussion. I certainly will be encouraging them to come and talk to the minister, potentially, and certainly to the branch.

I'm going to move to the last piece that I want to talk about a little bit, and that is modernization.

Obviously, there have been some news reports about modernization. We're seeing, in different places, talk about what that might involve, whether it's patios in Vancouver, hours of service, happy hours. There is a whole variety of topics on the table there. So I've got a couple of questions around that.

The first one is: could the minister give us a sense of what her thinking is about what's captured in the discussion of modernization? What are we talking about here when we talk about modernization, in the view of the minister?

Hon. S. Anton: I probably have all kinds of things in my head about what modernization might be. But the important thing at the moment is that this is going out for a very extensive public consultation. This is being done by the parliamentary secretary from Richmond-Steveston, who is going to run a broad consultation with members of the public, with stakeholders, with the industry, etc.

There is no question that there are a lot of opinions out there about liquor. The public would like to express them, and stakeholders would like to express them. There does seem to be a general belief that our system is antiquated, that our rules need revamping and relooking at.

[1815]

We have different values now, probably, than when the liquor legislation was first passed, after prohibition. That
[ Page 975 ]
has been creaking away over the years. It's time to have a broad look at it. That's what the goal of our very broad-based consultation will be over the next few months.

The parliamentary secretary will be reporting to me, and I will then be bringing recommendations forward — possibly a change in legislation and in regulations to, I think, reflect the values that society has now around liquor. I would emphasize there is both use and misuse. Both are of interest, and both must be contemplated. But as I said, I do think that people feel differently, obviously, now about liquor and its use than they felt, perhaps, some years ago — and certainly when the original liquor legislation was written.

S. Simpson: I'm going to combine a couple of questions here. Just so I'm clear about modernization. The focus of modernization is the relationship, largely, between consumers and those people who are providing to consumers, whether it's food and beverage, whether it's sellers. That's the foundation of the discussion of modernization.

There are a bunch of other places where you could modernize, but that's been the public discussion certainly. It has been hours of sale, "Can we have happy hours?" — those kinds of things. Is that what it's about?

I'll just add this question in. The second part of this is: has the minister given her parliamentary secretary any kind of timelines for the expectation of when she will get back something and then when, of course, she will be in a position to, presumably, report to cabinet?

Hon. S. Anton: The timeline is that the consultation will be done this fall. I would like to emphasize that this is a pretty broad consultation. We'll examine the relationship between consumers and the businesses, between the businesses and the rules that they operate under, between the manufacturers and the rules they operate under.

The regulatory framework is old and does need to be looked at, so it will be, as I said, a broad-based consultation with the ability to look broadly at the whole regulatory structure of the industry and the consumption of alcohol. And….

S. Simpson: I'm not done yet. We've got lots of time. I've got two more questions.

Hon. S. Anton: Hon. Chair?

The Chair: We have an agreement. The time is…. We're at 20 after. We were supposed to finish at quarter after, so….

S. Simpson: Well, let me just state that I know you're cutting this short, and I know that we cut the hours short generally for estimates here. I find it very unfortunate that we're not going to allow ourselves to complete this.

I'd like to suggest that I'm disappointed in the Chair's decision, though I understand it.

The Chair: Okay.

Hon. S. Anton: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and completion of the Ministry of Natural Gas Development and report progress on the Ministry of Justice and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:20 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
JOBS, TOURISM AND SKILLS TRAINING

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); D. Plecas in the chair.

The committee met at 2:43 p.m.

On Vote 30: ministry operations, $181,457,000 (continued).

Hon. S. Bond: I want to just begin by welcoming my staff that is here today. To our opposition critics: there'll be a number of them sort of moving in and out, depending upon the topics. I should say that we very much appreciate a bit of a road map. It helps us to have people here when we need them and not waiting for long periods of time. So I very much appreciate that.

I'm very pleased to also be joined by my partner in the ministry, the Minister of State for Tourism and Small Business. We're very pleased to be working together on a number of issues, including small business and tourism. Tourism has been thoroughly canvassed by the opposition critics, in that part of the portfolio.

Obviously, the Minister of State for Small Business will be dealing with that matter. I understand that will be later in the day tomorrow. Certainly, she'll be available here to do that.

I'd like to introduce our ministry staff: Dave Byng, our deputy minister, and George Farkas, who is the assistant deputy minister of management services. We have a number of other staff, as I said.

Given the short time we have for estimates, I won't be making any other comments. I'm sure we'll canvass the ministry thoroughly throughout the course of the next
[ Page 976 ]
two days.

[1445]

H. Bains: Before we begin, I'd also like to take this opportunity to welcome the staff that I've had the opportunity over the last few years to come across, meet with and work with. I want to thank them for coming and assisting us in going through these estimates.

I thank the minister for being very, very cooperative so far. Since both of us are new in this portfolio, we have a few issues that we've worked with. I do want to thank the minister for accommodating the briefing meeting that was arranged. Thank you very much.

I do want to say here — and I usually say this in every setup of estimates — that during these estimates there will be some comments made, some criticism coming out of our conversation. I just want to say this to the staff: it's nothing to reflect on you.

I know that you're all hard-working people and that you are, basically, implementing the policies that are created by the minister and the government. I don't fault you for anything that this government has failed to deliver on — what the people are expecting in different areas. When I criticize, it's not the staff.

There's no personal criticism of the minister either. It will be of the policies — sometimes we agree with, sometimes we disagree with — and there will be areas where we would say that things could have been done better.

As we said, then, we will start with the jobs plan and the jobs area of the responsibilities the minister carries. First, I just want to make a statement, just a little bit of overview. Then I'll get into each one of those areas, bit by bit as we proceed, a little later.

I just want to say that since the jobs plan was implemented or was initiated by the current Premier back in September 2011, this is what we have seen. We are second-to-last as a province — second-to-last in private sector job growth. From September 2011 to June 2013, that 20-month period, we have lost 7,600 private sector jobs.

We are third-to-last, eighth place, in total job growth — just 26,200 new jobs since the jobs plan was released in September 2011. In that same amount of time the working-age population has grown by 64,400.

B.C. has the weakest recovery from the recession of all the provinces. Since the pre-recession peak we have suffered the largest drop in the employment rate. Employment rate — I just want to make sure that that's what we're talking about: the share of the working-age population who are employed. It's dropped a full 3.5 percentage points, or the equivalent of 134,800 jobs.

Since the national recovery began around July of 2009, the B.C. employment rate hasn't recovered at all. It's just been bouncing along at the bottom.

B.C. has lost a lot of jobs in the industries that the jobs plan supposedly is focused on. The goods-producing sector as a whole has lost 11,500 jobs, while we have gained jobs in service, largely in retail. Lots of new jobs we are getting also are in the retail trade, while we're losing jobs in relatively high-paying sectors like construction and manufacturing.

Indeed, we see the average weekly wage fell last month by 0.7 percent and is now at just $869 per week. We are in fifth place in wages, and since September 2011 average B.C. wages have grown more slowly than in any other province except Quebec and PEI.

I think, on one hand, the minister and the Premier and the government would make a case that the jobs plan is working. They would use different data, different time frames, to back up their claim. But I think the reality of the fact is that when you look at Statistics Canada and the job-growth analysis that comes, these are the things that we find.

[1450]

So I will be asking the minister how the minister can still say that the jobs plan is working. We'll get into that a little bit later.

First, I want to ask the minister…. A lot of money, taxpayers' dollars, was invested in promoting the jobs plan. I ask the minister: how much did the government end up spending on the jobs plan ad campaign? How much was spent in the domestic market, and how much in foreign markets?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, we will have some discussion about the statement that the member made throughout various points of the afternoon.

In fact, advertising budgets are not within the ministry. Those questions are handled by the Minister of Finance when it comes to the actual advertising budgets. Clearly, government had a number of outcomes it wanted to achieve, and in fact we have seen important growth in information now being shared with British Columbians, in particular. But the actual advertising dollars — that comes under the Ministry of Finance.

H. Bains: I neglected to mention that my colleague from Alberni–Pacific Rim is here with me, and he will be taking part in some of the areas of the jobs plan — specifically speaking, it'll be the regional trusts and a couple of other areas from the regional perspective that the government has initiated. He will be jumping in and out soon.

My question, then, to the minister would be…. Here we have a jobs plan, and this minister is responsible for implementing the jobs plan. Part of the responsibility would be to market our jobs plan. You are out there trying to solicit how this jobs plan is working. How are we letting the rest of the world and the rest of the province know what our jobs plan is? How do you do that if you're not responsible for investing that money in marketing?

Hon. S. Bond: One of the things we know, and it's ap-
[ Page 977 ]
parent, is that we're still in a fragile economy. Having said that, British Columbia is on the verge of unprecedented opportunities. We're going to get into those numbers, I'm sure, as we move throughout this presentation.

The campaign was very much about giving British Columbians advice. Where can they find work? How can they learn about British Columbia's economic assets and how that works? The ads were about supporting economic growth. They were factually based.

[1455]

We believe that it's important, at a time when we need more British Columbians than ever to be considering a career, for example, in the skilled trades, for them to be able to know how best to pursue those kinds of careers, where to look for information. That was the purpose of the campaign.

H. Bains: Who's responsible from the ministry to deliver that campaign?

Hon. S. Bond: As is the practice in government, in fact there are communications teams that are part of every ministry. There is a centralized approach to that. The campaign was created, and we had advice from the central team that builds information campaigns and shares them with British Columbians. I think the point is that at a time when there is a need for workers, how do they get information, and how do we provide facts to people who are interested in learning about the jobs market, about the economy and what British Columbians' needs are? That's exactly what the campaign was designed to do.

H. Bains: I wasn't questioning the campaign itself. I understand that for any program or any product someone has to offer, you need a marketing plan.

My question was: who's responsible within the ministry to help, whether it's a centrally designed campaign or whether the money came from the Ministry of Finance? I think the question is: who and how many staff members were involved in actually putting together the package outlining what is in our jobs plan and what kind of message are we trying to get out? Then, perhaps, somebody else paid for it.

But my question is…. It still is related to the ministry, and I'm following the dollars. It's a fair game to ask the questions about how much money it actually cost the taxpayers to promote this jobs plan. What was the total bill, and where was the money spent?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the advertising and campaigns of this nature are covered under the Ministry of Finance. That's part of how the public accounts process works. There are people who work with us in terms of communications, but frankly, it's the entire ministry's job.

We are about skills training and jobs. We're about a strong economy. There isn't an individual that's responsible for this. Again, there are communications teams in ministries and across government that work to put these types of programs together, but it's the entire ministry's job to ensure that we're delivering and making sure that information is shared with British Columbians.

H. Bains: Thank you to the minister for the answer. But my question still is…. Perhaps we could put it into FTEs. How many FTEs were involved in helping with the central campaign and with whoever else to put together a campaign, and how much did it actually cost the ministry to help put those ads together?

Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite, I know I don't need to remind him, but the estimates process is about those issues that are in front of this ministry. The budget for ads resides with the Minister of Finance. That's where the funding and the financial documentation — all of that — rests, in the Ministry of Finance.

Having said that, I have one communications director in the ministry, and that person was ultimately the person responsible for ensuring and monitoring the impacts and the outcomes related to the B.C. jobs plan. As I said to the member opposite, the coordination is across ministries, so that person would talk to other ministries about impacts, gathering facts and those kinds of things.

[1500]

But the actual fiscal responsibility for advertising within government rests with the Ministry of Finance.

H. Bains: Perhaps I could share these numbers with the minister. My information is that a total of $15 million was spent on promoting the jobs plan. The previous minister said that there were some foreign ads, and he was quoted in the Vancouver Sun that the foreign ads were supposed to attract jobs and investment to the province.

So $15 million total — $5 million domestically and $10 million, foreign markets. My question, then, is…. The previous minister said that these were to attract jobs and investment to the province, so where is the measurement for $15 million? What did you get in return?

Hon. S. Bond: The primary focus of the campaign was actually domestic. Again, I don't have the breakdown in terms of the actual breakdown of the $15 million campaign. I think we've been very clear that the $15 million campaign has been clearly articulated, and the intent was actually to drive people to a number of resources. In fact, since the bcjobsplan.ca was launched in September, we have seen almost 300,000 people access information, to the site. We've had literally thousands of people connected with information. We held job fairs, which was part of the discussion that was held publicly in terms of the ads — 47 job fairs. Literally over 130,000 people attended.

You know, we've actually seen a 329 percent average visitor increase to bcjobsplan.ca, and the point is that
[ Page 978 ]
the plan was designed to drive people to get information, to help them in the kinds of career decisions, to better understand the economic opportunities that were available in the province.

H. Bains: The minister is saying, unless I heard it wrong, that the primary intention was to promote the jobs plan domestically. Yet my numbers show that only $5 million, one-third of the total, was spent domestically, and $10 million was spent overseas — in the outside market, foreign ads.

So how was the primary intention of the government to attract the domestic audience and promote our jobs plan domestically when you spent one-third of the ad campaign compared to what you spent overall?

Hon. S. Bond: I want to correct the record, and I apologize to the members opposite. First of all, government communications is now transferred to the Minister of Technology and Citizens' Services. So the overarching government process is actually managed out of the Ministry of Technology and Citizens' Services. That change was made very recently. I want to be sure that record is correct.

You know, the point of the B.C. jobs plan is…. We've certainly not been shy about telling everyone that our first priority when it comes to jobs in British Columbia is British Columbians. I'm advised that the focus of the campaign shifted to look at the domestic market, making sure that British Columbians understand the job opportunities and the skills that would be required. Clearly, we've been very clear about our priorities: British Columbians first. When we need to look beyond those numbers, we'll look to the rest of Canada and beyond when that's necessary.

So the jobs plan, the ad process, the information campaign actually focused, I'm told, on the domestic market.

[1505]

H. Bains: Can the minister, then, confirm if $10 million was the number spent on foreign ads outside of B.C. and that only $5 million was in B.C.? How can the minister justify that it was B.C.-focused and yet you spent half the advertising money that you spent outside of B.C.?

Hon. S. Bond: As I said to the member in my previous answer, I'm advised that the campaign shifted and that $10 million was not spent outside of the province. In fact, the focus of the campaign became British Columbia, and the majority of dollars were spent here in the province.

H. Bains: Can the minister advise the House how much was spent domestically compared to outside of B.C.?

Hon. S. Bond: We don't have the breakdown of that spending. As I said, though, clearly the campaign shifted. The intent was to inform British Columbians, and the majority of the information was provided here in British Columbia. Again, I corrected the record: it is certainly the Ministry of Technology and Citizens' Services that has the actual dollar amount in their STOB line.

H. Bains: I appreciate that the ad campaign was designed and delivered by another ministry and paid for by the Ministry of Finance. But certainly, there are staff members from the ministry involved, to work with those two ministries on what kinds of advertisements and what kind of message we need to include on those, and where the money should be spent. Where is the target market? Is it B.C.? Is it outside?

My numbers showed that twice as much money was spent outside on promoting the jobs plan as in B.C., but the minister now is saying that no, the focus shifted.

Can the minister tell us why the focus shifted? Why was it designed to spend more money outside than in B.C.? What was the reason that the focus shifted? And then how much in resources was actually spent on promoting the jobs plan domestically for British Columbians? If the minister doesn't have those numbers, can the minister get those numbers? How much and what resources were spent here in B.C., compared with outside of B.C.?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, I've answered the question repeatedly: that the accounting for information campaigns is a question that would be directed to the Ministry of Technology and Citizens' Services. We've been very clear. The information campaign was to give British Columbians the information they need about skills advice, about finding work and learning how British Columbia's economy actually supports business investment.

How did people respond to it? Well, in fact, in the first half of 2013 there were 150,000 visits to bcjobsplan.ca and approximately 800 people a day who learned about our economic advantages and skills-training resources. That's nearly three times more than it was in the same period in 2012. We saw a 126 percent increase in page views for the first six months of 2013 — 340,000 page views.

The intent of the campaign was to provide information to British Columbians to make sure that they were aware of the importance of a strong economy and making sure that they recognized that skills training had a critical role to play in the future of the province. That's exactly what the information we provided did.

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister could tell this House: who decides where the resources should be spent and where we are going to promote our jobs plan? When the minister says that the focus shifted, obviously some-
[ Page 979 ]
body had made a decision previously where the focus should be.

[1510]

And then there's a reason — and perhaps the minister could outline what the reason was — for refocusing back to British Columbia. How long did that go on? When was that decision made? Again, I am sure this is the decision that the ministry and the minister and her staff would be making. If the focus is British Columbia, if the total resources are going to be $15 million, for example…. Although somebody else is paying, those questions could go to them.

Somebody decides how much of that should be spent locally and how much should be in Canada and how much should be outside. Somebody in the ministry is making decisions. Who are we targeting? Who is our target audience? Who are we trying to attract into B.C. for investment and for jobs, so that we can create jobs? I think those decisions are made — if I'm wrong, then the minister can correct me — by the minister and by the ministry.

So if the minister could maybe outline: what was the initial plan? Where was the focus? Then when did that focus change back to British Columbia? And what kinds of resources were provided to make sure that refocusing of our strategy was working?

Hon. S. Bond: We should be clear. We have said consistently and publicly that our first priority is British Columbians, and the information is critical. I have only been the minister of this portfolio for a month, so I wasn't privy to the discussions about the target groups and what the specific intent was. But I can tell you this: after a month I can certainly agree that it is essential that information like this is shared with British Columbians.

In fact, just today we released a task force report on the requirements for liquefied natural gas on the assumption that we'd have five projects in British Columbia. The numbers, in terms of the number of skilled workers we would require, are astronomical. They are thousands and thousands of trained workers.

As the economy began to strengthen and more and more proponents were coming to British Columbia, saying, "We want to be involved, we want to invest, we want to start an LNG plant, we want to open a mine," obviously our first priority is making sure British Columbians have the facts, the opportunities and the information we need. That was the point of the information campaign.

H. Bains: Obviously, from the answer that we received from the minister earlier, when I gave some numbers — $5 million for domestic ads and $10 million for foreign ads…. In fact, the previous minister said, when he was asked in the Vancouver Sun, February 22, "Are there any measures of its success?" the previous minister told the Vancouver Sun that the "foreign ads were supposed to attract jobs and investment to the province," and the designation of those resources are $5 million domestically and $10 million outside of B.C. Obviously that focus, what the minister is saying today, wasn't the focus at that time. At that time, obviously, the focus was outside of B.C.

I'm sure the minister has repeated her answers a few times now. She's saying the focus always was…. Well, I don't want to put words in her mouth, but she did say that we refocused our attention to B.C., which means that the previous focus wasn't British Columbia as the priority. I think I will leave it at that.

I think it seems like the foreign and outside-of-B.C. attempts did not succeed. It wasn't working the way they were spending money on, and finally the minister is saying that we refocused back to British Columbia so that we could give British Columbians a chance to take advantage. Fair enough. But I think that's why we are seeing the results of a failed jobs plan as I have outlined previously in my opening remarks. From the beginning, they thought they could attract billions of dollars from outside into British Columbia. It didn't happen — had to refocus back to British Columbia. But I'll move on.

[1515]

I think the next one is…. Under the jobs plan, it does say here that British Columbians are first in line for those jobs, which is what I'm going to talk to the minister about. My question is: what program do you have to make sure that B.C. workers are first in line for B.C. jobs?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, we have an overarching goal to ensure British Columbians are first in line. It centres in the skills-training agenda, for example. We are looking for ways to train British Columbia workers as close to home as possible. One of the commitments that we have, in my mandate letter, is to align training dollars with opportunities that are needed in the province.

Today when I look at the LNG report that the taskforce provided to us, for example, we need thousands of pipefitters and welders and all of those people who will help both in the construction phase and in the ongoing operational phases.

As a government, we're going to take a cross-ministry holistic approach to ensure that we have training opportunities in regions of the province where people who are currently not employed will have those opportunities to be trained and ready for the demands in the days ahead.

As I said earlier in the day to the media, this is an opportunity for British Columbians that is unprecedented. We're going to have jobs looking for people instead of people looking for jobs. Our goal is to ensure that we have training opportunities close to where they live, close to the opportunities.

We're also going to focus on groups that are currently under-represented in the workforce — First Nations, who need to benefit from these projects and who need to be participants in them; women; and persons with
[ Page 980 ]
disabilities.

H. Bains: My question, again, is…. I asked specifically: what program do you have to make sure that B.C. workers are first in line for B.C. jobs?

This is very recent — July 2013. The B.C. Building Trades released their employment record of their different trades. This is what it looks like in July 2013. Boilermakers are 80 percent employed; bricklayers, 95 percent employed; cement masons, 81 percent; IBEW 213, 77 percent. Another one, 79 percent. Then we have IBEW 1003, 56 percent employed; insulators, 95 percent; labourers, 86 percent. Then we have operating engineers, 85 percent. Here we have plumbers, 62 percent.

Overall, when they take the average, there's 17 percent unemployment in these trades in British Columbia.

My question to the minister is…. More and more of these trades are leaving British Columbia to go to Alberta for jobs. My question is: what kinds of programs are there that the ministry is engaged in to make sure that those people find jobs here — domestically, local — where they are living?

Hon. S. Bond: I am positive that if there are those kinds of numbers of individuals who are looking for employment, we have lots of opportunities ahead for all British Columbians who are interested in working.

You know, the interesting part of the statistics that the member doesn't speak about…. I live in Prince George, and the unemployment rate as of last month was 3.8 percent. Nanaimo is under 4 percent. Obviously, in the northeast, we've seen numbers that are virtually zero unemployment.

What we have done is focused our training dollars in the areas of the province — and we're going to continue to do that — to align the dollars that are available with the needs that we have.

[1520]

As I said, earlier today we released a report that talks about numbers in the magnitude of 75,000 workers. To suggest that workers are going to have to leave for Alberta is simply….

We will have unbelievable opportunities. Simply looking at the math in British Columbia, we won't have — even though we will give every opportunity, as we look to training and how we align those dollars to British Columbians…. The math doesn't work. There will be a necessity for us to recruit workers from across the country to actually supplement the number of British Columbians that will be in those jobs.

We have invested dollars in regional campuses. We've provided the largest funding to post-secondary education in the history of British Columbia. We are adding new training opportunities. We added $75 million recently to upgrade facilities across the province in terms of the equipment.

More importantly for me, we're actually working in partnership with industry. We're looking for ways to work constructively with the industry, to be innovative, to think about how we do things differently. We don't have time to continue to do things in the status quo way. We have to start looking at innovation. We have to look at competence.

Those are all initiatives that we are going to look at as we ensure British Columbians have every opportunity available to them.

H. Bains: The minister still hasn't answered the question: any specific programs that would be there to make sure that when the jobs are here in B.C., British Columbians are first in line?

To the contrary, we can look at two things from what the minister is saying. One is that on the one hand we know there is a skills shortage. The industry will tell you in the resource sector that there's a skills shortage. They've been saying that for years. The ministry that is responsible for that training is Advanced Education, and there's only one ministry in the last budget that has seen a $45 million cut. So how do you match the skills training — to match the right people for the right jobs, as the minister says — when you're cutting?

We heard in question period today there's a waiting list at Kwantlen, where I come from, for trades training — two years, three years. And here we're cutting the budget in that ministry.

What I'm saying is: is this ministry working with the Ministry of Advanced Education? Is this ministry working with the overall government programs to say, "Look, it does not make sense to cut the budget in that area, because this is what the integral part is of our jobs plan"? If you're cutting and we're not training those workers for the jobs to come, then we're destined to fail. We're designing the whole thing to fail.

I think the minister has to look at it that way. On the one hand, industry is saying there's a skills shortage. As the forest industry is picking up again, they will need more skilled labour, and they may not be there when they need them. In the meantime, we're not providing resources to the ministry that it needs to train those workers.

Having said that, on the other hand, we have issues with foreign workers — HD Mining. We said B.C. workers would be the first in line for those jobs.

HD Mining is a prime example before us. Here's a company that is allowed to come in here. I love these foreign companies who come and invest money and create jobs here. I'm all for it. But those jobs should be for British Columbians.

We have a real example here. First, the information was being suppressed by the federal government, and the local government wasn't helping either, saying that we didn't have skilled labour, and we didn't have skilled
[ Page 981 ]
workers to take those jobs. Then, when they were forced through the court actions by the unions to open up their books, well, there were over 200 or 300 skilled workers who actually applied for those jobs. They were available for them to be hired.

How are we saying that B.C. workers will be first in line for those jobs when our actions don't show that?

I think those are a couple of examples that I'm giving the minister. How do we address those issues? On the one hand, we're allowing foreign companies to come in and invest and bring their own workers here, and our workers are in the back of the lineup, and they are saying they cannot work. Then they put a requirement for them to have Mandarin speaking qualifications — all kinds of roadblocks. The government just sits there and lets them do that.

On the other hand, the skills training that we need, the resources that we need for that ministry, is being cut back.

[1525]

I'd like to agree with the minister that the jobs plan is there. It is to create jobs for British Columbians, that British Columbians are first in line for those jobs so that our children have some hope when they come out of the high schools and out of the trades schools that those jobs are there. But those actions, those two examples that I'm giving you, do not match the statement that the minister and the ministry are making.

Hon. S. Bond: For the member to suggest that we haven't made an investment in post-secondary education is simply not accurate. The B.C. jobs and skills-training plan is built on $1.9 billion — that's with a "b" — in post-secondary training and more than $500 million in annual investment in skills-training programs in British Columbia.

To suggest that British Columbians aren't working…. I would ask the member opposite once again to look at some of the unemployment rates. Our unemployment rate in British Columbia has fallen to 6.3 percent, and we have unbelievable numbers in some communities. Prince George is at 3.8 percent. That is down from 6.9 percent a year ago. Kamloops is at 4.5 percent, down from 8 percent a year ago. Nanaimo is at 3.7 percent, down from 6.1 percent a year ago.

We're very pleased to see jobs gained in the northwest — 1,500 new jobs in the last year — and a decline in the unemployment rate from 12.2 percent to 6.7 percent. We are investing, as I said, over $1.9 billion in partnership with post-secondary education.

Perhaps I can help the member opposite with this. We launched a youth strategy with the Industry Training Authority in the spring of 2013. We made a $5 million investment in new sector-specific skills-training programs and a $6.8 million investment to expand the B.C. job match program with the B.C. Construction Association.

The introduction of regionally dispersed apprenticeship coaches. In fact, we've seen the number of apprentices virtually almost double over the last number of years. We saw, last year, a record number. It was a record number of certified skilled workers to enter the workforce. More workers than at any other time, in terms of certification, entered the workforce last year.

We have an aggressive strategy. There is no doubt about it. The challenge we have is actually being ready for the job demand that we're going to face.

As I said earlier, we're going to ensure that British Columbians regionally and then provincially have the opportunity to participate by being trained closer to home, when that's possible. We have to look at encouraging Canadians to consider coming to live in British Columbia. Ultimately, we will have to deal with the issue of how we're actually going to find the workers necessary.

For example, with LNG alone, if we contemplate five LNG plants, we would need 60,000 workers during the construction period — 60,000 workers. You know, the member opposite…. Fundamentally, we have a different view. The member opposite says he's not interested in seeing foreign companies invest in British Columbia. The member opposite said that he wasn't really crazy about that idea.

We want to attract investment to British Columbia, and we're going to continue to work in partnership and support those companies that actually are interested in working here.

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister was busy talking to or consulting staff. I didn't say what the minister said that I said about foreign investment. I actually said that I'm happy that they come in here and create jobs and investment in British Columbia. That's what I said.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

But I said also that I would be looking for them to invest here, to create jobs for British Columbians. That's what I said.

The government, along with the federal government — what they didn't do was protect British Columbians and put them in first. The minister says and the ministry says in the jobs plan that the British Columbian is first in line.

It didn't happen at HD Mining. They were not even at the end of the line. They were not even invited. They were simply told: "You're not invited. You're not welcome here." That's what happened in there.

The federal government did that. The provincial government just sat there and let them do that. No one…. I'm just asking the minister, why didn't the government at that time stand up to the federal government and say: "Look, our British Columbian workers must be first in line for those jobs"? Because we do have a skilled labour force here in mining, and they could go and take those jobs.
[ Page 982 ]

[1530]

In fact, that came up and was found out through the court order when they had to reveal that information — how many people actually applied and what their qualifications were. In fact, hundreds of British Columbians qualified to do those jobs applied.

I think that's where the action would have been. You know, it's passed, but I think we are looking for the future. The provincial government…. If you're saying that British Columbians will be first in line, then show it. Show it by actions. Stand up to HD Mining: "Come here and invest. We are the best province for you to come and do business. Come and invest here. Come and invest in career jobs, because we provide you very stable government regimes. We provide you with very good, stable regulations, and our taxes are competitive with the rest of the world. So come and invest." But those jobs should be for British Columbians. They should go first in line, as the minister says, by showing those actions, telling HD Mining: "Come in and do it." But that didn't happen.

Also, the minister said that I somehow said that government is not investing in post-secondary. I also did not say that. I said there was a cut in the last budget of $45 million. Of course, we all know, in looking through the budget, that there's $1.9 billion for post-secondary education in the ministry. That's how much money is there to run the ministry.

So yes, you're investing. Yes, there's post-secondary education, thank God. But the thing is, at the time when we're promoting skills, skilled labour and the training, and at the time when we're promoting jobs in British Columbia and the future jobs, 80 percent of them, require some sort of post-secondary education credentials, we're cutting the budget from that ministry. That's what I said.

So how do you explain that to people who are actually hoping to be first in line — that "we want to get trained" but the budget is being cut, and now the waiting line is longer than it was previously? I think those are the two things that I wanted to ask the minister.

But I wish to correct the record the minister made some statements on, first. Also, I want to allow my colleague here to ask some of the questions that exactly came out of the answer from the minister.

D. Donaldson: Thank you to the critic for allowing me to pose a few specific questions, and to the minister for her new responsibilities — congratulations — and to the staff for being here.

I have an example that illustrates problems with the approach that the government is taking in regards to the training part of the Jobs file under this ministry. The people in the northwest are suffering the consequences of this approach.

It's in relationship to Northwest Community College's School of Exploration and Mining, a very successful program. It's a field program that has very much participation from First Nations and was nominated and won the Premier's Award a few years ago for its approach. As well, it's won an award from the Mining Association of B.C. for its approach.

The problem is that they depend on labour market agreement funding on a year-to-year basis. An example is just this past year, when on the last day before the writ was dropped in April they received word that they were going to be funded for this season's delivery of programs.

You can imagine how disruptive this is when you've got an award-winning program and you're trying to retain staff and advertise. There's that anxiety of advertising for students when you actually don't know if you're going to be able to deliver the program because you don't have the funding. So this caused a lot of disruption.

[1535]

We know that the minister quoted some employment statistics for the northwest. But, and I know she's aware of this, this does not reflect the reality in many First Nations communities, especially in Stikine, that depend on a program like Northwest Community College's School of Exploration and Mining to actually get into the workforce — it's an amazing program for that when it comes to mining — and then, hopefully, work their way up through the mining sector and into jobs that are even more rewarding.

My question with that context is: will the minister be advocating…? I imagine she discusses a lot with the Minister of Advanced Education these kinds of scenarios where the ministry in question here is paying for or supporting, through labour market agreements, training programs, and successful ones at that. Will she advocate on behalf of, the example I gave, for the School of Exploration and Mining to be included in base core year-to-year guaranteed funding through the Ministry of Advanced Education — I know they're appreciative of labour market agreement funding, but I think we could say it's not ideal in this context — so that they know that they're funded year to year?

Will the minister also ensure that for the coming seasons they aren't in the situation where they find out as late as mid-April around funding for the seasonal programs that they support?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. S. Bond: Good afternoon, hon. Chair.

I think the question is very relevant. I think we need to find programs that work, and we need to find ways to make sure they continue to allow students, and particularly First Nations students, to be successful in the job market. I can't today make commentary about the Advanced Education budget and how that might flow.

What I can tell the member opposite is that we are committed to working together as a team across minis-
[ Page 983 ]
tries. It's not about the Jobs Minister; it's not about the Adv Ed Minister; it's not about the Education Minister. It's about all of us figuring out how we can align the dollars that we have in the most effective way possible to meet the job demands.

We need to know how many people we need, what we need them to do, when we need them and where we need them. And then we have to design a program that will help deliver those kinds of outcomes.

We do invest significantly out of the labour market agreement in terms of aboriginal persons and funding. In fact, when I look at the number that's forecast for 2013-2014 — it is in addition, obviously, to the dollars that are in Adv Ed — it's in excess of $11½ million. The questions are: what programs work, how do we make sure those programs continue to operate, and how do we see expanded capacity? And that's going to take some tough questions, some tough discussion about how we look at the dollars we have, the needs that we have and how to bring better alignment.

While I'm not familiar with the specifics of that program, I certainly understand the member's interest in making sure that a successful program continues to operate. Those are discussions that we'll be having, and I would appreciate his input and advice as we work our way through that.

H. Bains: Also, as we know going forward, many of the projects in the next ten years…. It's tens of billions of dollars, as I see it on the books. Most of them will take place in rural B.C., and residents of British Columbia, as the minister says, should be first for these jobs.

Does the minister have any program or any direction to include local hiring for your procurement practices in order to develop the skills of British Columbians?

[1540]

Hon. S. Bond: I have had the pleasure of meeting with a number of proponents and people who are interested in investing in British Columbia. It's not about dictating to those companies about local hires. Those companies are very interested, and their pattern of involvement in other countries actually shows them wanting very much to work with local communities and individuals first. We are seeing no hesitation whatsoever in terms of the people who want to invest and begin to start a project — an LNG project, for example, a mine or anything else — in this province. They want to have British Columbians at work, and they realize and understand the importance of that.

I've also been very impressed with their emphasis on ensuring that First Nations British Columbians actually have the opportunity to be the near the front of that lineup. I've certainly had zero hesitation, from any of the large companies that I've met with, in terms of their interest and their willingness to partner with us in ensuring that local residents have an opportunity to work with those companies.

H. Bains: I say this, although in theory…. As the minister will say, we allow the companies to come and make their own decisions, and then you expect that most of them will want to engage with the local folks and hire them and provide them opportunities. But when you design a project in that fashion and a successful company comes in, they have their own procurement departments.

I'll give you an example, the Port Mann/Highway 1 project. Here's one company that has a contract, basically from Whistler all the way to Hope, through that consortium. They have their own procurement department. They have their own department that supplies equipment. Of course, the locals picked up some of the work, but it was after they had exhausted their own internal procurement areas. And when they couldn't get it through their own, they went to the locals.

I met with a large construction company, and they said: "This is not a right model for the local companies." They are small and medium-sized companies. They're basically left out.

Of course, there were companies…. The minister is going to stand up and say: "So-and-so company and that company was engaged in that." Yes, but if you allow one company to dictate and leave it up to them who they hire, then local companies do not get what normally could be there.

That company actually used the Island Highway model. They said that was on budget, on time, and they said that different local companies had an opportunity to bid on a section of that highway, the bridges, the culverts. Those were the local workers that they hired, that they would bring with them, and they would invest money into the local economy.

These were their words — that this model, when you bring one international company as large as Kiewit, does not work that way. Then you're left at the whim of that international company, which has their own departments, and they bring their own. In fact, I had a call from the local rental company. They said: "They don't even talk to us, because they have their own procurement department, and they bring their own people in here."

I think the question is a fair one. If the government is inviting these international companies to develop these projects, is it not right for the minister to say: "Well, as a component of that" — if the government is engaged in negotiations — "there should be local hiring, and there should be an apprenticeship training component of that contract"? Is it not fair for the government to engage in those types of arrangements with these companies?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, in fact the member opposite is absolutely correct. I'm going to give him a very recent example. Yesterday I met with two of the proponents
[ Page 984 ]
regarding LNG in British Columbia. Their statement to me was: "Here's the practice we use with hiring — local, regional, state, country." That's the preference of investors that are coming to British Columbia. They want to make sure that locals have the opportunity to participate.

[1545]

The member opposite simply needs to look at the job demands. We're going to have a million job openings in British Columbia by 2020 — a million job openings. As we discovered just today with the task force report, thousands of workers are required for the LNG industry alone. As I said, my preference, obviously, as we work with companies is to work with them constructively.

As I said, as recently as yesterday afternoon the company said, "This is the way we hire. This is the way we want to hire. We look forward to working with you to engage with local communities," and a particular emphasis on supporting First Nations in those areas where, obviously, a project makes a difference in the lives of First Nations individuals. So in fact, we have progressive companies who are looking at utilizing British Columbians in their workforce plans.

H. Bains: Yes, good for that company. I applaud companies like that. But again, you're leaving it up to an individual company to make those decisions. I think British Columbians are looking for some leadership in engaging on their behalf to have those components included in those contracts so that you don't leave it up to the company. If one company does it, others may not do it.

That's what I'm asking, and that's what British Columbians would be asking. Why can't this minister and this government put some provisions in those contracts that will require, then, that the local hire be given a preference and that skills and training and apprenticeship would be a part of that program — so that you don't leave it up to chance and you don't leave it up to the company, where one company will do it and the other company will not do it?

Hon. S. Bond: The government has been very clear. Our focus will be on making sure British Columbians get the opportunity to be at the front of the jobs lineup. The member wants us to cite programs. There are thousands of programs across British Columbia that are working to meet the skills-training needs of people within this province.

The problem we are going to have is not people looking for those jobs over the long-term. It will be jobs that are looking for people. If the member opposite does the math in British Columbia, even if every student that was in school today graduated with the intent of becoming a skilled tradesperson, we'd still be short of the people we need to reach the million-job mark.

From our perspective, we've been clear: British Columbians first. We are going to have work very hard to attract other Canadians to come to British Columbia to make sure that we can actually meet the training needs that have been identified. As I said, as of just today, with releasing the liquefied natural gas task force report, the needs are significant.

Again, I was very impressed with the work that had been done and the willingness on the part of companies, the willingness to say: "Let's be innovative. Let's make sure that local people get those jobs. Let's look at training and doing an apprenticeship over the course of a four-year buildout of a liquefied natural gas plant." That's innovative. That means that people who live in that area of the province would be able to, hopefully, in partnership with industry….

We actually believe in working constructively and in partnership with those sectors. They would be willing to take apprentices through that four-year cycle. So by the time the plant is ready to go, not only has that person had a job, but they will have finished their apprenticeship. That's the kind of innovation that industry is looking to partner with the government on. We've been clear: British Columbians come first.

H. Bains: The minister kept on using the number one million jobs by 2020. Let me ask the minister this: are there exactly one million jobs by 2020? Are all those new jobs in addition to the jobs that British Columbians have today? Secondly, maybe the minister could give me a breakdown of where those jobs are going to be — what region of the province and what sector of the province those jobs will be in — when you give us a breakdown.

Hon. S. Bond: That's exactly the work of the task force. When we look at the report…. I would really urge the member opposite to consider having a look at it. It's called B.C. Natural Gas Workforce Strategy and Action Plan — released today, in fact, with many of the proponents being part of that. As we begin to develop the skills-training plan, which will be a ten-year plan, that's exactly the way we're going to look at the metrics: how many people, in what industry.

[1550]

Candidly, one of the challenges we're facing is that when we started having discussions about liquefied natural gas, we were talking about five potential plants. Today we have potentially nine. The numbers continue to increase, and our job in this ministry is to look at the metrics. Where do we need the workers, at what time frame, for how long, and what are the training requirements?

Let me give the member opposite just a bit of a sampling, for example. This is liquefied natural gas only. When you look at a revitalized forest sector, mines that are opening in British Columbia, a number of other industries including the tech sector, tourism — which are all on the rebound — yes, the number will be up to a mil-
[ Page 985 ]
lion jobs. Our job is to figure out how we build a skills-training plan to match that.

So 21,600 jobs directly involved in the building of the LNG export facilities and associated pipelines at peak construction expected to occur in 2016-2017; 41,900 jobs will be created in the industries that supply goods and services during the construction's peak phase; 2,400 permanent jobs are required to operate and maintain the plants and pipelines on an ongoing basis; and 61,700 jobs are required to support LNG operations, including workers required to drill, produce, process and transport the natural gas required to feed the export facilities.

That is based on five LNG plants. That information was released today. We just simply need to continue to multiply and analyze and make sure that we have a complete picture of what the job expectations for the province will be.

H. Bains: If I add those numbers up, they are close to 160,000 jobs for five plants. I didn't do exact math, but rough and dirty it's 150,000, 160,000 jobs for five plants. We are talking about a million jobs. You add another four. Is the minister saying that all of them are of the same magnitude and that they will all have the same number of jobs in each one of those projects?

The million jobs the minister is talking about — are they all in LNG? And if they are, can the minister say how many in total are in LNG and how many in other sectors? If I could get a breakdown.

Hon. S. Bond: As I just said to the member opposite, it's a bit of a moving target, but I can certainly outline where the expectations are.

So one-third of the job openings will be new jobs related to direct growth. Two-thirds of the openings will be due to retirements and an aging workforce. We have a combination of factors that are happening.

Approximately 78 percent of the total job openings over the next decade will require some post-secondary education. Currently about 70 percent of our labour force has some post-secondary education or a university degree.

What's going to happen, as we move forward, is tight labour market conditions, and we certainly are going to have demand exceeding supply. But the occupation groups expected to have the fastest demand growth rate are in health occupations.

The anticipated growth. So we would look at the current number of employees and look at growth. In health occupations it's 2.4 percent; natural and applied sciences and other related occupations, 1.6 percent annually; and occupations in art, culture, recreation and sport, 1.6 percent annually.

The occupation groups with the most expected job openings from new jobs and retiring workers are sales and service, 224,600 job openings; business, finance and administration, 182,000 job openings; trades, transport, equipment operators and related occupations, 153,000 job openings.

If you look at the growth in those other sectors and you look at these particular jobs and retiring workers, the number we would anticipate is up to a million new jobs.

H. Bains: When the minister says up to a million jobs, what numbers are we talking about? Are we talking about 100,000 at the low end and a million at the high end? What are we looking at when the minister says up to a million? If it's not a million, what's closest to the million?

The minister is saying that one-third of those will be the new jobs, if I listened to the minister correctly, and two-thirds of them will be through retirement. So those are existing jobs. Then the minister went on to say 78 percent — fair enough. It's 78 or 80 percent of the future jobs that require some kind of post-secondary education credentials.

[1555]

The minister didn't answer my question. How are we going to comply with this post-secondary education requirement when we are cutting in that ministry to the tune of $45 million?

I also want to get back here to the five LNG plants the minister talked about. They come up with about 160,000 or 170,000 jobs. Are they all new jobs? Are they part of that one-third new jobs? It means it doesn't leave very much room in all of the other sectors the minister is suggesting, because one-third is 300,000 jobs, even if you go to one million jobs. And 300,000 — we have already gone to 170,000 for five LNG plants. There are another four on the go, as the minister says in the books. So what happened to the rest of the sectors, the forestry and others, which I'm going to get to later on?

Hon. S. Bond: To actually stand in this chamber and ask me to give a precise number of job openings by 2020….

Interjection.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, they're done by forecast. The member said: "What number is it?" I can't tell him if it's 1,000,002 people or 999,997.

The fact of the matter is that we have a very sophisticated process that analyzes the labour market. In fact, one of the recommendations in the report today that's provided by the LNG working group, the natural gas working group, is to make sure that we are looking at excellent labour market analysis and information, sharing that publicly and looking at how we inform British Columbians, which is ironic. If the member opposite reads the report, the number one recommendation is about sharing information and communicating.

We spent the first 15 minutes of this discussion talking
[ Page 986 ]
about why it's important to share information, and the first recommendation coming out of the B.C. natural gas strategy and workforce plan is to tell British Columbians about the opportunities. Lay out the information. Give them the facts. That's exactly what the jobs plan information campaign did.

Now, in fact, we have the industry telling us: "You need to do more of that, and you need to get out in front of this."

The fact of the matter is that this is an analysis. It's the best work we can do — looking at all of the sectors, looking at all of the growth areas. Yes, retirements are a factor too. All of us, and I hate to admit it, are aging. So we have to consider retirement, new growth. We have to consider new jobs.

All of that, when we put it together, we ask experts in the field to give us that projection. So we should be clear. The projection, the forecast, is for one million new jobs.

H. Bains: How does that measure against the population growth? You will have one-third new jobs. The rest of them will be through retirement. What is the projection for population growth during the same time?

Hon. S. Bond: We don't have the population growth projections. I'm sure we can probably find that out and bring it back tomorrow.

The fact of the matter is we have an aging demographic. We have people having fewer children. We've seen that in terms of the number of schools and the number of children in schools. So we have a demographic challenge as well. We have an aging population. We have young families that are choosing to have smaller families.

As I said, one of the things we have to talk to British Columbians about is the fact that we want British Columbians to be first in line for jobs, and then we're going to have to move beyond that. We're going to have to look at the rest of the country. We're going have to encourage people to come.

We have unprecedented opportunities in front of us. It does mean that we are going to have a challenge, certainly, filling the job demands that we will see between now and 2020.

H. Bains: One of the eight sectors that the jobs plan talks about targeting and creating jobs is forestry. I would have a few questions on that.

[1600]

As the government's own documents will show, in 2001 we had in British Columbia 445 sawmills. In 2011 we had 294 sawmills, which means that 151 sawmills are no longer there that were there in 2001. Different numbers are thrown around. It's tens of thousands of workers who have lost their jobs.

I'm looking at a piece of information here. There are mills here on the coast that cannot find raw logs, raw material, to operate their mills. The problem is because the Minister of Forests overruled his own committee — not once, not twice but dozens of times — to allow those logs that are needed here domestically to go overseas.

The minister, in the jobs plan, talks about meeting with…. As far as the forestry part is concerned, this is the 18-month update. They say:

"The Mid-Term Timber Supply Action Plan, released in October 2012 in response to the Special Committee on Timber Supply's report, is addressing the B.C. interior's mountain pine beetle epidemic. Legislation has been introduced to support the conversion of volume- to area-based tenures where there is clear public support to do so, and to increase bioenergy opportunities. An expanded inventory program and pilot projects to mitigate wildlife risk are also now in place."

Then it goes on to say:

"The revisions to the log export policy and B.C. Timber Sales accelerating the auction of 500,000 cubic metres will help to improve the coastal forest economy by increasing the amount of fibre reaching domestic mills."

There are a couple of questions here. One is that the Timber Supply Committee unanimously…. It was made up of members of the government side and members of the opposition side. After visiting 18 different communities and, I believe, 650 presentations — written presentations, oral presentations — all of them said and identified a certain area.

One of the areas was to invest in forest health so that we have jobs for our future children and the workers. Yet that's another ministry that is cutting in this budget, $35 million from forest health. How does that help those mills who are looking for raw fibre to restart those mills and create those jobs for local economy when we don't, number one, invest in forest health for the long-term health of our forests?

Secondly, how does that help our local sawmills and workers when we allow logs to be exported when they are needed locally? There are operators. They are making a lot of noise and saying: "Look, we need those logs here, but we're not given the opportunity." How does that fit with the jobs plan?

Hon. S. Bond: Those questions are better addressed to the Minister of Finance. Those relate to forest policy in British Columbia.

What I can do to bring the member back to the jobs plan is talk a little bit about some of the achievements that we've actually seen. I'm pretty conversant with the impact of the downturn in the forest sector. I actually live in a place where the forest industry was very deeply impacted, and I watched what happened in people's lives.

As a government, part of our strategy wasn't to sit around and just hope that it got better at some point. That's one of the reasons why we chose to diversify and make sure that we were looking at other markets. When we saw the absolutely dramatic downturn in the housing industry in the U.S., we focused our eyes on Asia.

As we look at rebuilding and looking at our jobs plan in
[ Page 987 ]
British Columbia, part of the reason that mills are open today, a number of them, is because we actually decided that we were going to reach out to China. I can tell the member opposite that as we look at the jobs plan, we were very clear about…. People are working today because we decided that we were going to focus on China. Today there are 12 mills operating almost due to exports in China. Those are sawmills.

[1605]

In 2012 we saw 56,400 workers employed in the B.C. forest sector. That's up, for the member opposite's information, from 53,400 in 2011. We have targeted forestry as one of the eight sectors that are critical in our job strategy. We're starting to see a revitalized forest sector, and we're going to continue to find ways to support the forest industry in this province.

H. Bains: Here are some of the numbers. In 2013 we have mills here that are not working at full capacity because they couldn't get those logs. But on the other side, we are seeing here that in the first four months in 2013 the raw log exports by volume have reached two million cubic metres, which is 8.5 percent higher than the same period last year. Last year we saw a record amount, 5.7 million cubic metres, of raw logs exported.

With these numbers and this trend you are looking at beating that record this year. In the meantime we have Kitwanga Lumber in rural B.C. We have Teal-Jones right here in Surrey. They are struggling to get raw material. They see logs go by them when they cannot get logs to operate their mills.

I appreciate the minister saying that it's Forests policy and that the Minister of Forests can address that, but the jobs plan is the British Columbia government's jobs plan. It's the government's policy here that contradicts your other policies on forestry, and your policies contradict what you're trying to say through the jobs plan in the Ministry of Advanced Education and the foreign worker program.

We are trying to understand what the minister is saying. On the one hand you are saying that British Columbians will get first in a line-up for those jobs. And 78 percent of those new jobs will require some kind of post-secondary education credentials, yet we're cutting in the same ministry that is responsible for training those workers.

Here we have the forest industry, which is one of the eight areas identified in the jobs plan where the jobs plan will help to create jobs, yet we have the same government's policy that allows logs to go by those mills when those mills are shut down because they can't get those logs. How does that square with the government policies that are contradicting each other?

Hon. S. Bond: The Forests Minister, I'm sure, would be happy to debate forest policy with the member opposite. He would also be, I'm sure, as I would be, very interested in knowing what the opposition's position was. During the campaign, while there was a comment about, "We're going to deal with raw log exports," it certainly didn't make it clear to British Columbians. There was going to be changes, but there was no clear policy statement by the members of the opposition during the campaign, either, in terms of their approach to it.

We should be clear about this. This government has strategically made decisions about looking at China, but we've looked beyond that as well. Reconstruction projects are underway in Japan, following the devastating tsunami in March. We've also opened a trade office in India that will look at our government expanding our market to India as well. We've also seen the use of wood in residential construction expanding, and First Nations are becoming true partners in forestry, holding 15 percent of the province's annual allowable cut.

We recognize the importance of the forest sector. We're thankful to see that there is beginning to be a revitalized forest industry in British Columbia. It is a critical component of the jobs plan, and we're going to make sure we continue to focus on ways to support the sector.

H. Bains: We were very clear, actually, on our log export policy. We said that we'll make our own laws and that we'll enforce them. The laws that were on the books before the election, the laws that are on the books today mean that only surplus logs can be exported. The minister has overruled his own committee over 100 times and didn't enforce the government's own laws. In fact, in disgust the vice-chair of that committee resigned. I mean, that's that much for that part of the government's contradiction to the jobs plan.

[1610]

I'd like to ask my colleague from Alberni–Pacific Rim…. He's got some questions about different regional economic development programs, pilot projects. So that he could ask those questions, I'll give some time to him.

S. Fraser: Hello to the minister and staff. Thanks for being here, availing yourself for this important process of budget estimates. I appreciate your time.

I'll go right to one of the key planks in the jobs plan, the regional economic development pilot programs. The ministry held forums in Campbell River, Pitt Meadows and Vanderhoof. The regional economic development pilot programs, these forums, were intended to bring together people in the communities to brainstorm private sector job creation ideas.

The first question is just a generic question: what's the status of those pilot projects?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, we have had three 12- to 18-month pilots in three separate regions of the province. The province partnered with the city of Campbell River,
[ Page 988 ]
the McBride to Barriere corridor region and the North Fraser. Not just communities, because there is more than one there, but groups were brought together in those particular areas and generated important priorities for each of those groups. In fact, three to five priorities were identified. I can outline a couple of the projects that are moving forward.

I'll use Campbell River as an example. Three priorities have been worked on. A Vancouver Island exploration geoscience project was completed. Results of this survey were released at Mineral Exploration Roundup in Vancouver. The idea there was to help geoscientists target their mineral exploration activities.

The second priority was a biomass inventory report for Campbell River. It's been released to industry as well. It gives detailed technical information about biomass sources and volume near Campbell River.

The third item was a consolidated community marketing initiative and hosted B.C.'s international trade and investment representatives in October of 2012, with a focus on the tourism sector. That's an example of three of the initiatives in the Campbell River pilot.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for the answer. There was also a promise of a forum for First Nations at the same time as the announcement on the economic development pilot program there. What's the status?

I did try to look that up. I couldn't find any reference to any forum for First Nations that followed the promise.

[1615]

Hon. S. Bond: I'm advised that the approach was…. I'm not sure if it shifted or whether there was some thinking about work being done with First Nations. But there is work being done with four First Nations in the Merritt area. So while it doesn't reflect, necessarily, a broader forum for First Nations — and again, I'm at a bit of a disadvantage having not known exactly what that commitment was — there is work underway with four First Nations in Merritt on a specific economic approach and project in that area.

That's the work that's been done to date specifically for First Nations outside of these three corridor projects.

S. Fraser: I thank the minister for that.

Okay. So the original forums in Campbell River, Pitt Meadows and Vanderhoof were December of 2011 and January of 2012. The promise of a forum for First Nations. Was there a forum? It doesn't sound like it. Or if there was, where exactly was that held? Was it just one forum? I couldn't find any reports on it. I'd just be curious to know how that played out.

Hon. S. Bond: Maybe it's just the choice of the word "forum" for First Nations. I'm not sure. What I'm told is that there was a look at a number of regions. There was a region selected. It was in the Merritt area, where four First Nations are working together on a specific project.

The member opposite would be correct. There does not appear to have been a provincial forum. There seems to be a focused approach. Having said that, I think there is the intent to look at another similar working-type group in another region of the province so that it would not simply be in the Merritt area with First Nations.

I'm told that there may be another one being contemplated. I'm learning about this at the same time as the member. Obviously, I'll be doing some more homework about what the thinking was around it and how this particular forum was chosen.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that.

Is there a budget for this, if there's still more work being done? Is that the budget that's part of the regional economic development pilot program? Is it titled that, or is it somewhere else in the budget?

[1620]

Hon. S. Bond: There isn't a specific budget line outside of the operating budget of the ministry. Really, when you look at what was contributed, it is staff time, support, expertise — obviously, getting to and from those places to facilitate the work.

The intent was a 12- to 18-month pilot that was intensively focused on those regions of the province. It was accommodated within our regular budget.

S. Fraser: Thanks. That explains why I couldn't find any specific references.

The example that the minister gave me for Campbell River I'll use as the scenario I'll work with now. Then there were two other areas that were involved, in the province. That was the preliminary work done through the forums initially. So obviously they, in themselves, aren't job creators. I could see them being tools towards job creation.

There was a formal commitment at the time made by government to develop steering committees and thoroughly investigate each opportunity. Again, you've given me three opportunities that have come out of the original forum. What's the status of those steering committees?

Hon. S. Bond: The teams were actually called project teams, and there was a project team, I'm told, assigned to each one of those projects — for example, in the case of Campbell River. I'm sure it's similar in the others. In fact, where the work has been completed, the project team would have done that work, and that would not be continuing on.

There is consideration, I'm told, for a second phase on the biomass priority, so that might require ongoing work by the project team.
[ Page 989 ]

But I'm told they were called project teams. It involved a number of resource people and also local individuals.

S. Fraser: Again, following the example of Campbell River that the minister used…. The initial studies were complete, the three of them. I know my colleague from North Island raised this, I believe, last year — April. The entire project was sort of downloaded — one description — onto a local organization. So what involvement does the government have to make sure that there are deliverables and actual jobs created?

[1625]

Hon. S. Bond: I think it's important. I regret the description of "downloaded to a local organization." I'm hopeful it's because the expectations may have been different with some members of the community.

I think the role of the pilot was for government to come alongside communities and regions. It wasn't for government to own the project or to take on the ongoing work that needed to be done. It certainly is about, though, coming alongside and supporting communities. I think it should be viewed as the province facilitating those opportunities and providing tools to communities.

You know, there's a good example when you look at the geoscience work that was done — 20,000 claims have been staked. Those are the kinds of things that that tool, that information, provides.

Certainly, it's my understanding that it was a role in facilitating, providing support, working alongside of those regions and together looking for ways to try to diversify and strengthen economies.

S. Fraser: I have looked at the press releases and the statements made by your predecessor, who was Minister Bell at the time. He was talking about this work specifically. The ministry's work would lead to shovels in the ground. That was the quote. "Shovels in the ground."

There was a firm commitment to thoroughly investigate each of the opportunities. Making that commitment means the ministry doing that — not, again, downloading it on. Where's the follow-up? How many jobs have been created through direct jobs and indirect jobs, if you have that information from the regional economic development pilot program?

[1630]

[G. Hogg in the chair.]

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, when we look at…. The project was named a pilot, so it's a learning process as well. This isn't about: at the end of it we're going to have 12 jobs and…. We should be clear, though. The priorities that were selected by regions to work on were selected by the people who were involved in the pilot. I'm told that in some circumstances there were 50 or 60 priorities brought to the table, and those were then analyzed and actually reduced to a number of priorities that the region wanted the pilot to work on.

Whether or not, as a direct result, there are jobs that could be attributed to the pilot…. I'm not sure about the statistics related to that. But this is a pilot. It was about the region identifying projects that they wanted to work on. That's what happened. The ministry's job was to come alongside and support these regions as they worked through those priorities.

I do want to correct the record. I want to be sure that this is…. I apologize. I didn't have this information just a moment ago. It is 22,800 hectares that have been staked.

S. Fraser: I guess I'll go to the commitments made. At the forum that was held in Barriere, then Minister Bell said that the ministry would be actively working on fast-tracking the highlighted projects. How's that working? Have projects been fast-tracked?

Hon. S. Bond: In the McBride to Barriere corridor, which I am extremely familiar with, the projects that were identified…. I remember there being a lot of discussion and a lot of priorities. They were actually narrowed down to a number — five that I can provide updates on.

One of the most significant issues in that quarter is the issue of stable power. That was probably the highest priority that was identified in that corridor pilot. The progress is that B.C. Hydro and proponents are continuing discussions on the development of a 138-kilovolt transmission line from Valemount substation to a new substation at McBride. There's a discussion going on about that, and it's actually made…. From what I've been told from people who live in that part of the province, there has been progress made on that.

[1635]

Bridges 2 project is a two-year partnership to assist community forests and small woodlot licence holders to identify new business opportunities. That was started in the fall of 2012.

There have been repairs completed to Trophy Mountain Road and Clearwater River Road in Wells Gray Park, and there are some signage improvements that are being discussed there. They pilot-worked with Valemount to acquire permits for two cycling trails that they were looking at in terms of their strategy, and work on a subregional tourism strategy was started in October 2012. I understand that the draft and the final plan there are nearing completion and should be shared very shortly.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I guess the actual quotes…. There was a commitment made to the North Thompson–Robson region of monthly updates. The ministry "will be providing monthly updates to the North Thompson–Robson region and possibly will hold another forum within the region around April as a
[ Page 990 ]
follow-up."

I couldn't find those reports. Could the minister at least advise me as to how to get hold of those reports?

Hon. S. Bond: There was not a second forum held in April, and I think the member could probably understand why. If there had been one, he'd probably be asking me why there was one in April. So, in fact, there wasn't one in April.

In terms of the communications process, there was not, I'm told, regular, formal reporting out on a monthly basis, so there aren't reports that the member could access. I'm told that there were conversations and there was ongoing work done with a variety of groups, though not in a formal reporting way to the committee or the group of people that had met originally on the pilots.

S. Fraser: Okay. I appreciate the minister's answer, although I'm not happy with it. We have commitments made. We have shovels-in-the-ground commitments made. We have ministers stating priorities like stable power and B.C. Hydro's continuing discussions.

That's great. They were happening before. So there's no way to link that to the pilot program — you know, the Campbell River example, suggesting that the geological exploration facet of the pilot in Campbell River has led to $22,000 or whatever in claims being made.

Well, fair enough, but we have an on-line claim system in the province already. There's no way to link that, that I can see, to any of the regional economic development pilot projects. What measures of success are you using on these programs? How can we actually learn if there has been one job created out of any of this — except, maybe, for some consultants?

[1640]

Hon. S. Bond: I think it's unfortunate that the member believes that the pilots haven't had a benefit — and a direct benefit. The fact of the matter is…. I'm wondering how, without mineral content being actually gathered and posted, staking of those hectares would have happened. The information was gathered and posted. The mineral association actually thinks it's very progressive and does think that that had a direct impact on that occurrence.

I can only speak for the forum that I attended and participated in. The process included the community determining the priorities — the region, in our case.

There was a strategy in place that engaged regions to say: "What are the things that matter most in terms of helping support your attempt to diversify and strengthen your economy?" It wasn't governments here: "We're going to provide thousands of new jobs." That's not what the intent was.

Yes, we are hopeful that the resulting impact will be shovels in the ground. If we actually manage to have a hydro substation put into the Robson Valley, that will make a difference to that economy, and it will ultimately lead to jobs and the economy being strengthened.

I can only provide the context of the discussions, the goals. There will be ongoing follow-up and measurement to ensure that the work that has started does provide regional benefit.

S. Fraser: I don't necessarily buy that. We're not even getting the commitments lived up to about having the monthly reports out that were committed to early on.

As far as the mineral claims and how that's benefiting the area around Campbell River…. I did estimates with the minister responsible for mines and mining. In May there was a flurry of applications for claims made on a whole bunch of coal projects that all of the local governments are opposing because of the concern about watershed issues, the marine habitat, the existing jobs in the shellfish industry, etc.

None of these hypotheticals seem to reflect any actual jobs or any of the growth strategies or planning initiatives of the communities. There seems to be no way to follow this because there aren't any reports, and there don't seem to be any definitive measurables for success in this at all.

What was the budget for the regional economic development pilot program in its total? Has it finished yet? Is it still ongoing?

Hon. S. Bond: There was no separate budget. There wasn't additional funding. All of the resources were provided through the ministry. There were a variety of ways that those dollars were invested — obviously, if we're talking about roads and signage and things like that. And there would be staff support in addition to any of those dollars already covered in our ministry budget.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I'm not sure how these projects are rolled out, but it's very difficult for the public to have any meaningful way of tracking what's happening, why it's happening, how much it's costing, what the results are, what the follow-up is, where the reports are.

[1645]

I have been trying on this one for a while. I haven't really got any answers, except…. I don't think it is my fault that I haven't been able to find these answers. They're simply not available because of the way the budget's laid out and the way the reporting has been done.

I guess just to finish off on this topic, on one of the forums that happened, at Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge, for the North Fraser communities, a December 14, 2011, article said that they would narrow it down to ten possible projects, then to two or three feasible ones by June. What I was able to find is they've narrowed it down to ten by February 18 of 2012.
[ Page 991 ]

Then there was a press release issued which said: "The final handful of projects that will be pursued will be announced in March." I believe that chairing that steering committee was the Liberal member for Maple Ridge–Mission.

There was no announcement made that I could find about that final handful that was supposed to have been announced in March. Can the minister help me there, please?

Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite, I think that I just want to go back to the reason that a government would contemplate economic investment pilots, focusing on regional benefits.

Again, I think it's important to reiterate. This isn't about the government coming in and creating new programs or guaranteeing job creation. What it is, is an opportunity to support regions that need intensive support and expertise — and a way of helping them develop the kinds of strategies and tools that will help them as they move forward. It's not about doing everything for them or supplying millions of dollars.

There has been progress made. I don't disagree with the member opposite. I do believe that there needs to be demonstrable outcomes and deliverables. I think that's very important. If the way that's been communicated needs improvement, then that is something we certainly need to look at.

I don't think we should assume that progress hasn't been made, that the pilots haven't been successful. But certainly, it's something I'll take a look at in terms of how the success has been measured, what the ongoing role of the government is. It was a 12- to 18-month process, but I do think follow-up is critical.

I do appreciate those comments that the member opposite made. But again, our role was to support, facilitate and then look at how we could provide benefit of a regional nature.

I can give the member opposite some of the things that happened in the North Fraser pilot. I have a number of things listed here. There was the North Fraser tourism corridor branding strategy completed. There was work done to support developing an agrifood distribution hub business model. They worked on a business model to look at how they distributed their agrifood products.

They facilitated the Pitt Meadows Regional Airport presence at an aerospace trade show in Lynnwood, Washington, as part of B.C.'s exhibition there, and again, completed communications and marketing materials and business attraction strategies for the airport.

I actually met with a number of people that have been involved in this process very recently — very, very great, excellent work done on their marketing strategy. It's called True North Fraser. That is a demonstrable outcome. In fact, I think it will benefit them. They were very positive about that. Also, the importance of their airport was something we discussed at length.

I think there are things that have been successful as a result of the pilots. They're called pilots for a reason. It's about learning how we can take best practice. That's exactly what we'll do from these pilots that were in place.

S. Fraser: I appreciate that. Again, I don't see any way of linking any shovels in the ground to these various strategies and business models that have been created. There was supposed to be follow-up. There was supposed to be a commitment from the ministry to follow up on all of these things. That didn't happen.

In the January 23, 2012, article in the Barriere Star/Journal, again, your predecessor, Minister Bell, was saying that he hoped that they'd have shovels in the ground within six months and that they would come back in April for a follow-up meeting — which they didn't, as we've learned — and would provide monthly updates to the region, which they haven't.

[1650]

Again, I'm somewhat frustrated, as others are, by the sound of these projects — "shovels in the ground within six months"; there's a definitive statement — reporting out being done monthly, follow-up work and, presumably, resources to come with that to make sure that this actually did create jobs.

There were no measurables and therefore no deliverables that you can actually pin to this program — just a bunch of promises that weren't lived up to, quite frankly.

With that — and the minister may want to respond to that to try to change the record as I've left it on Hansard — I would like to move into, because of the time requirements here, the development initiative trusts, the various ones throughout the province.

Hon. S. Bond: Again, I do want to correct the record. There has been progress. There have been deliverables.

I outlined a list of at least three deliverables for the Campbell River pilot project. While they may not be the member opposite's preference, I am told that the group that was gathered in the Campbell River pilot identified three items as their priorities, including a marketing strategy. While that may not result in a shovel in the ground today, I'm assuming that it creates another tool, and it allows people to actually have the kind of economic development process that they need in place.

I've also outlined a number of deliverables, and in fact, I think, actually I mentioned that a road had been repaired. There are signage issues.

So while "shovel in the ground" is a pretty vivid term, I think that these regions have been given some additional tools, support and expertise. That was certainly the intent of the pilot, and we're going to continue to find ways to improve our communication and make sure that the regional benefits can be demonstrated.
[ Page 992 ]

S. Fraser: I was going to respond again, but we'll never get anywhere.

I have another issue. The Premier, in her leadership campaign, promised to review the progress made by the regional trust organizations — such as the Northern Development Initiative Trust; the Island Coastal Economic Trust, which I sit on as an advisory member; and the Columbia Basin Trust — and look at how they can improve and enhance regional-based economic investments.

Now, there have been a bunch of concurrent reviews here — Auditor General studies and stuff, too, and internal audits that had to be done. But this specific review that the Premier made a commitment to was supposed to be completed by December 31 of 2011.

Again, I haven't been able to find this. Maybe it's just my researching skills, but can the minister apprise how to get hold of that report?

[1655]

Hon. S. Bond: There are several documents that the member opposite could take a look at. They are public.

There was an internal audit done by the Ministry of Finance, and that document is public. There was also an audit done by the Office of the Auditor General. Both of those processes were designed to do exactly what the Premier suggested: to look at the operations, the way money was managed. Those reports, I am told, are public, and the member can look at those.

In addition to that, each of the trusts was asked to do a review of their own legislation. I'm also told that those would be published on the websites of each of the trusts.

S. Fraser: I'm aware of those particular…. I know through FOI we learned that in December 2010 the office of the comptroller general — we all remember the office of the comptroller general — initiated a review of provincial economic development initiatives, specifically the structure and processes used to coordinate and manage the province's efforts to support rural communities affected by the economic downturn. There are those, a number of reports out there, including the ones that the minister was referring to, and there's, again, another one, from the comptroller general.

But this was quite a specific commitment made. Again, documents obtained through FOI indicated that the Premier's commitments to do that study, the specific one of how to improve and enhance regionally based economic investments…. It appears that the study had begun in July 2011 with the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and investment. The review on that report — which was initiated because of the Premier's commitments in July of 2011, two years ago — was supposed to be completed by December of that year. I don't think we could even find it through FOI. Can the minister explain that, please?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm told that there was an initial beginning, some work within the ministry to look at the issues that the Premier had raised, with the subsequent release of two reports. One was an internal audit by the Ministry of Finance, and in the Office of the Auditor General an audit was done — both of which received very positive results.

[1700]

There was no final report released or produced by the ministry. In fact, the reliance was on an internal audit by the Ministry of Finance and on the Office of the Auditor General — very substantive reports that clearly had a very positive outcome.

S. Fraser: Can the minister inform as to when the report…? The Premier committed to looking at how to improve, engage and enhance the regionally based economic investments through the trusts. That was initiated. When was it stopped? What was the date? When was that?

It was initiated. A July 2011 briefing note from the minister proposed a review of the regional trust organizations pursuant to the Premier's leadership campaign promise. According to the minister's own note, that was July 2011.

The review was approved by Minister Bell, at the time — we have the FOI on that — and the document stated that the review was supposed to be completed by December 31, 2011. I mean, we only had a four-month window, really, for this to be completed. When were the changes made to halt this report?

Hon. S. Bond: Thank you to the member opposite for his patience. We're going to have to go back and get the timelines, in terms of when the reports came in, because the issue actually predates the minister, the deputy and the ADM that are sitting in this room. I'd rather not speculate, actually, on what happened. We're going to go back, and we'll try to come up with what the timing around that was.

Once again, the answer to the member's question is this. Work was done to review the trust by the Ministry of Finance and the Auditor General, and the view, I'm told, was that any internal work would simply be replicating the work that the internal audit and the Auditor General had already done. So there was a decision to rely on that information. Also, as I pointed out earlier, trusts were asked to review their own legislation.

Those were the factors that were considered. I assume the decision meant that that extensive work met the test that the Premier was looking to have looked at.

S. Fraser: I appreciate the answer from the minister. I look forward to…. If she is able to get more information on that, I'd appreciate that afterwards.

[1705]

On the legislative review — so that we're done on these — I would just note a couple of highlights on ICET, the Island Coastal Economic Trust report from the Legislature. It was prepared by Katherine Gordon, and its main finding was that the trust was effective but its funds were dwindling. Since I'm in the advisory role of that trust, I'm well aware of how the funds are dwindling there. All of the trusts, as the minister knows, are set up differently. Some are working with the principal of the $50 million they started with; others have different models.

The principal investment is what's happening with the Island Coastal Economic Trust. That $50 million, by some estimates, might be oversubscribed already. But the report suggests that the province provide more funding. Is that anticipated?

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the member and his role and the role of the trusts across the province. But it was 2006, and the province provided a one-time grant of $50 million to the North Island–Coast Development Initiative Trust. I remember being part of that discussion, actually, about how the money should be…. You know, who should decide how it's spent. Of course, we have the Northern Development Initiative Trust, and I was a very firm believer that local people needed to be able to make those decisions.

It was one-time funding. It was committed expressly in the legislation. While I understand that the trust that we're discussing has a small amount of money left, and I'm sure they want to see more money, the fact of the matter is that it was expressly outlined as a one-time opportunity. This trust has had a specific way of providing funding to communities and projects, but there is certainly no provision for additional funding in our budget today. It was expressly outlined in the legislation that this was a one-time commitment.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I get this. I mean, I'm biased. I would be an advocate for more resources because we like to see these projects, and it's about jobs — right? Regardless of what the original mandate of the trust was initially, 2006 — things change. I realize that, too, but the Premier made a commitment on doing a study, at least, on how we can improve and enhance regionally based economic investments through these trusts.

[1710]

Now, the minister has informed that that was halted because other, adequate studies were being done that covered the same issues. I go to the adequate study that presumably led to the cancelling of the study that the Premier committed to. In that study — that's the legislative review of Island Coastal Economic Trust — its main finding was that it was effective, that ICET is effective, but the report suggests that the province provide more funding.

This is the recommendation that came out of the report that the minister said trumped the Premier's report and caused it to be finished. I don't know why we're doing reports if we're not heeding their advice or if we're not listening to their advice.

I guess I'll go on to…. I know in the Northern Development Trust, a 2010 briefing note from the previous minister — page 49 for the staff there, if they need to figure that out — states that there may have been some outstanding issues with this review for that trust. The Northern Development Trust had some outstanding issues through that review. We weren't able to get that, because they were redacted.

Again, obviously there were some things issued. There were issues there, through the review. Is the minister able to give us any indication of what those shortfalls were and if they were corrected?

Hon. S. Bond: If the information was redacted, it would have been done for an appropriate reason, and it would have been done by the professional public service. I'm not even aware of what the information was at this point in time, in terms of the NDIT.

But we'd like to go back for a moment, if the member wouldn't mind, and perhaps reiterate what report suggested that ICET needed more money.

S. Fraser: I'm assuming it's the ministry's report. There's a legislative review of the Island Trust. That was March 10, 2011. That was the completion date of that, if that helps the minister.

Hon. S. Bond: Those reports were actually done by the trusts themselves. They were generated by the trust. Each trust was asked to go back and review its own legislation, so the request for more dollars actually came from the trust itself.

S. Fraser: Is the minister suggesting that would be self-serving?

Yeah, there were a flurry of reports done on this, including the Auditor General's report. But going back to the Northern Development Trust, where there were some issues highlighted by the previous minister but were redacted, I would note that the Auditor General's report — another concurrent report — has said that that same trust in particular should develop performance indicators that can be used to monitor progress in achieving economic development goals.

Again, I would suggest that that's what I was getting at with the regional economic development pilot program. I mean, there's no way to follow this. There's no way to track it. There's no way to find out if there are jobs created. There's no way to know. There are not clear goals, and there are no clear deliverables or ways of measuring.
[ Page 994 ]
I would suggest that's probably good advice from the Auditor General all around.

Again, just to finish this off. Have there been any actions taken because of these reports? I mean, the original premise of the Premier was that she wanted to improve and enhance the regionally based economic investments through the trusts. So we had the internal reports; we had the Auditor General's reports. You know, there are a number of reports, and the Premier's own report seems to have been stopped because of those.

[1715]

But of any of the recommendations that came out of that, I can't find any changes, any amendments, any revisions, any changes that have been made — substantive changes — to any of these trusts on how they report out or any of the recommendations that came forward. That's it.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I guess we could continue this debate for some time. How many reports does it take? I guess that's the question.

Interjection.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I'm about to get to that answer, Member.

The fact of the matter is that we had a report from the Auditor General. We had an internal audit from the Ministry of Finance. We had the trusts themselves actually review their legislation and post those answers. So a lot of work was done.

In fact, all of the recommendations made by the Office of the Auditor General were accepted by the trusts. All of those were shared with the trusts, and the trusts adopted all of those recommendations.

H. Bains: Can we go on to WorkSafe B.C.? I've got a number of other issues on jobs, but we'll leave that for now. WorkSafe B.C. is something that I would like to go on to.

WorkSafe B.C., as we know, plays an important role in workers' health and safety, prevention, enforcement, and paying of benefits and providing rehab to injured workers. I just want to get to the administration part of it first, and then we'll get into some of the individual, specific questions about WorkSafe B.C.

Perhaps the minister could tell the House…. If I look at the executive compensation…. The only thing I have here before me is the 2011 year. Perhaps the minister could tell me if the numbers for 2012 are available for the top five executives and their total salaries — each one of them.

Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite, as he would be well aware, executive compensation is posted. It's posted publicly. It's actually on the website. In fact, public accounts were released today, so the numbers for 2012 are public. They're posted. In fact, we've seen a slight reduction in some of those salaries. But yes, the numbers are available, and they were made public today.

H. Bains: Yes, they were announced today.

[1720]

Let's go to the 2011 numbers. Mr. David Anderson, CEO — his total salary was $465,515. That includes the $270,000 base salary. Bonuses and/or incentive plan compensation paid was $123,188; benefits, $15,025; pension, $45,276. All other compensation was $12,026, for a total of $465,515. That's what the numbers showed for 2011.

My question to the minister is this: when you have a base salary of $270,000 and the bonus and incentives bring you $123,000, how do you justify almost half of your salary as bonuses? What are these bonuses for?

Hon. S. Bond: I want to correct the number, because obviously the member doesn't have today's public accounts. In fact — and I'm going to explain the bonus thing in a moment, so let's not gasp when we hear — the number of the bonus this year is $118,233.

The government's been very clear about how it feels about the bonus provisions in organizations like WorkSafe. I am advised that WorkSafe has actually created its plan to transition the president and senior team away from the bonus structure. They are required to create a plan to transition those salaries. They will be moving to the new PSEC guidelines, which is a 10 percent holdback, and away from the bonus. In fact, there is a transition period for that to occur.

That plan has been created by WorkSafe. While this bonus is in place, there will be a transition to the new PSEC guidelines.

H. Bains: What would those guidelines be?

Hon. S. Bond: All right. The organization was asked to provide a plan for public sector employees, and that needed to be presented to the Minister of Finance. I should note that the commentary is that WorkSafe was one of the quickest plans to be provided to PSEC, and it was one of the best.

The guidelines are as follows: frozen executive compensation as of July 2012 — so it was frozen as of last year; reduced incoming new executives' compensation by 10 percent from their predecessors; replacing bonuses with holdbacks to a maximum of 10 percent of salary; phased out the retention bonus; eliminated the treatment of holdbacks as pensionable income; reduced the vehicle allowance marginally to comply with government policies for those receiving one; and eliminating bonuses below the executive level.

Those were the elements of the plan that WorkSafe provided.

[1725]

H. Bains: Those are, as I understand it — the minister could correct me if I'm wrong — the existing executives that are there. I'm still looking at 2011 and 2012 numbers. I don't have the total, but the minister gave me the bonus numbers, $118,233. I haven't got the other numbers. I haven't had a chance to look at them yet. Still, even if you look at those numbers…. First of all, the existing executives — will their salaries be grandfathered or protected where they are, or will they see a reduction of some sort to meet the new guidelines?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm not sure how I could have been any more clear, but I will try it again. There will be frozen executive compensation as of July 2012; reduced new incoming executives' compensation by 10 percent from their predecessors' and replaced bonuses, with a holdback at a maximum of 10 percent of the salary. Plus they're phasing out retention bonuses.

Executive compensation is frozen as of 2012, so those are, obviously, existing employees. The new, incoming executives' compensation would be 10 percent reduced from their predecessors', if you had a new executive.

H. Bains: When we say the compensation is 10 percent less than the previous salary, is that 10 percent of the total, or is that 10 percent of the salary?

Hon. S. Bond: It's 10 percent of the salary. And executives…. Hiring will be at 10 percent less than that salary.

H. Bains: Let's use this as an example. Mr. Anderson's salary is $270,000, so the incoming new CEO will get 10 percent less than that. Now, my question is: Mr. Anderson received $465,000 of total salary, total compensation, so if we're looking at a $27,000 reduction, does that mean that the new CEO will get $465,000 minus $27,000?

[1730]

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Hon. S. Bond: For example, a new vice-president has already been hired, and it is at 10 percent less than the compensation of the previous vice-president.

H. Bains: What would be the salary of the new….? So that I can get some numbers — the people are watching — what are the numbers for the new CEO? What, if any, compensation…? What is it?

Hon. S. Bond: Okay, we need to very quickly verify there is no new CEO, and there's nothing happening in that department. In the event that a new employee is hired, they would receive 10 percent lower compensation than their predecessor. These are PSEC guidelines. WorkSafe was asked to comply, and they have done that.

H. Bains: I asked this question previously — 10 percent minus $270,000 or 10 percent minus $465,000? The answer the minister gave was that it will be 10 percent minus $270,000.

Hon. S. Bond: No, I didn't say that.

H. Bains: Okay. So it is 10 percent less than $465,000 if I'm looking at the numbers in 2011. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: The answer is yes, and I did not say that it was $270,000. I said "executive compensation."

H. Bains: What I see happening here is what has happened in many other Crown corporations. The government makes huge noise because of the public pressure that there shouldn't be any…. "Why are they getting so much in bonuses and incentive packages?"

What they have done is roll the numbers equal to the previous years' bonuses and the salary…. They add them up and come up with the new numbers. Now they actually justify…. They don't even have to earn that salary. The bonus is supposed to be earning and meeting some targets. Basically, what the minister is saying, then, is…. You are telling them: "You will be paid 10 percent less than the last person's compensation, but now you don't have to meet the targets. You don't have to earn as those bonuses were supposed to be earned."

Is that the direction from the government to WorkSafe B.C.? Or does the minister agree with that?

Hon. S. Bond: I've asked and answered this question. I will read the list one more time. "There will be frozen executive compensations as of July 2012. There will be reduced new incoming executive compensation by 10 percent, replaced bonuses with holdbacks at a maximum of 10 percent, phased-out retention bonus, eliminated treatment of holdbacks as a pensionable income, reduced vehicle allowance and eliminated bonuses." WorkSafe was asked to comply with PSEC guidelines, and that's exactly what it did.

H. Bains: On this grid we see it says "all other compensation," and then there's explanation. The explanation is that $12,100 — includes $9,000 car allowance per year…. Then it also has a health care spending amount of up to $3,150 per year. Can the minister explain what that is?

Hon. S. Bond: It's an extended health care plan.

H. Bains: It also has benefits — $15,025. That means that they are everything else except extended health care? What do those benefits include?

[1735]

Hon. S. Bond: The benefits would include basic med-
[ Page 996 ]
ical, life insurance, extended life and dental, accident, dismemberment, LTD premiums, EI and CPP.

H. Bains: So the extended benefits that the minister said earlier — are they different than the extended health and life that the minister has said?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, it is discretionary. The secondary amount allows a health care spending account of up to $3,000. It's not unlike what other people have the opportunity to utilize, and they use it in different ways. The amount may be different, but the concept is the same. If you need a hearing aid or glasses or any of those things, this is a discretionary amount which is on top of the basic.

H. Bains: Let me go into another area here. I was sent this by one of the activists. He's referring to freedom-of-information data on bonuses. According to this one, he says: "The review officers receive bonuses for results on performance measures on which their decisions have impact."

So basically, what is being said here is that, according to this e-mail, that is not just a perceived conflict; it is an actual conflict because there is a pecuniary connection to their decisions. Each individual decision may have a very small impact on an overall bonus, and that is when we complain that this was a conflict. But just look at the percentage of decisions that are being varied compared to WCAT.

The prior appeal body shows that the review division allows less than half the amount that they do. So are there bonuses attached to the decisions that they make based on whether they allow claims or don't allow claims? How do they qualify for their bonuses?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm informed that that is not part of the bonus calculation. The activity the member just described is not part of a bonus calculation.

H. Bains: So can the minister let this House know what the criteria are for bonuses for review officers?

[1740]

Hon. S. Bond: The key performance indicators are the provincial injury rate, the number of claims first accepted per 100 person-years of employment, return to work, return-to-work outcomes for workers in vocational rehabilitation, timeliness of initial short-term disability payments, injured workers' rating of overall experience, employers' rating of overall experience, public confidence, 100 percent of the target asset level, aggregate premium rate between $1.25 and $2.25, and the administration costs.

H. Bains: Are the review officers under the same criteria as the top executives?

Hon. S. Bond: They are exactly the same. The member opposite may want to refer to the information — it's published annually — in the WorkSafe B.C. 2012 Annual Report. The criteria are listed and all of the targets and measures as well.

H. Bains: I want to get to some of the other specific questions here now. This is from people that work in the industry. We're anticipating about $70 billion in construction projects in British Columbia in the next ten years. Safety planning will be a critical component in preparing for this work.

The question is: what additional funds will be made available for increased inspections on these projects in rural areas on a regular basis?

Hon. S. Bond: Worker safety is critical to both the government and to the people of British Columbia. As he would know, WorkSafe is self-funded, so it's not a matter of government providing more dollars. As the economy grows and as we have more industry operating in British Columbia, there are fees generated from that, and as those fees increase and as economic activity increases, so does the presence of WorkSafe.

I can again articulate for that member. If you look in 2003, for example, the number of officers that WorkSafe had would have been 180, and today, in 2012, the number is 255. As industry grows and as there are more needs, officers have been added to deal with that.

The number of orders, for example, that WorkSafe has dealt with — 23,145 in 2003. Today it's 62,119. So enforcement resources are targeted where they're needed most, and that is on high-risk industries.

I can assure the member opposite and the person who provided the letter of concern that, of course, as industry increases, WorkSafe increases their presence, and they focus them on the highest-risk industries.

H. Bains: Thank you for that answer, Minister.

Recent WCB reports talk about high-risk strategy, but it does not give much detail. I tried to look for it, but it does not. Can the minister tell us what the resources being put to the high-risk strategy are and what WorkSafe B.C. has done as far as providing staff? The report also talked about a multidisciplinary team approach. What does that mean? And are there any more inspections happening now than before?

[1745]

Hon. S. Bond: There are a number of high-risk strategies, actually. The general approach from WorkSafe is a focus on high risk, targeting industries and employers that present the greatest risk to worker health. One would expect that that's how WorkSafe would actually manage its caseload.

There are a number of sectors. The construction high-
[ Page 997 ]
risk strategy looks at a very focused series of inspections on residential construction — an asbestos program, for example, and continuation of the crane initiative.

There is a forestry high-risk strategy and a number of issues related to forestry inspections in processing — looking at audits for operations with manual fallers, for example. There is a list of initiatives under each one of these strategies.

There is a health care high-risk strategy, a manufacturing high-risk strategy and a transportation high-risk strategy. It's relatively new. It looks at a range of occupations and employers — for example, taxi companies, moving, storage, couriers, those kinds of things.

The member also asked about inspection reports. I can tell him that in 2003 there were 15,976. In British Columbia in 2012 there were 37,612.

H. Bains: I want to move into a different area now. It's asbestos exposure and workers' deaths resulting from this exposure.

As we know, diseases from exposure to asbestos remain the single largest occupational killer in British Columbia. According to WorkSafe B.C. figures, asbestos-related disease was responsible for the deaths of 512 workers between 2002 and 2011.

My question to the minister is: what extra measures are being put in place by WorkSafe B.C. to ensure that exposure to asbestos of workers and, actually, of neighbours, is minimized or eliminated altogether?

Hon. S. Bond: The member is correct. There is a serious concern about asbestos in British Columbia. I know that WorkSafe takes this issue extremely seriously. Diseases that are caused by exposure do remain the top occupational killer in British Columbia.

WorkSafe has a number of things that it has done. WorkSafe focuses on industries that present the highest risk. In particular, the asbestos component is part of a construction high-risk strategy, as I mentioned.

There are a number of things. WorkSafe B.C. has a number of on-line and off-line resources addressing asbestos exposure. There is a website, in particular.

[1750]

WorkSafe has also identified contractors and consultants who have substandard asbestos testing, removal and disposal practices. In fact, they have identified those contractors that they believe need to look at compliance. WorkSafe does pursue employers in court if non-compliance continues.

In 2012 WorkSafe launched an occupational exposure registry where workers who believe they may have been exposed to asbestos or to other harmful substances, which include asbestos, obviously, can register. The information is kept as a permanent record, and it does help WorkSafe in the event of a future potential claim. In 2012 WorkSafe B.C. and the B.C. Cancer Agency worked together on an initiative to provide early detection and prevent or delay the onset of lung cancer.

So aggressively identifying those whose practices are not in compliance, ensuring that they are pursued, but also providing support and information to those people who may be impacted by asbestos.

H. Bains: All of that may very well be right and correct, and they are trying. But the minister knows that last September WorkSafe B.C. had to go to court to have this one contractor stopped from repeatedly exposing workers to asbestos. I mean, they don't have tools. Why can't they shut these operators down? They are not complying with the WorkSafe B.C. rules. They are exposing workers. They are exposing people who are living in nearby houses or areas or who work nearby the buildings that are being torn down.

There was another example: 250 orders were written to this one contractor, and he continues on. The only reason this person went to jail was because he was cited for a contempt of court order, not because he was violating WCB or the WorkSafe B.C. rules and that he was exposing. After he was written, he continued on.

What measures is the minister directing WorkSafe B.C. to take to make sure that we stop these contractors who are out there exposing workers day and night? The worst part is these workers will not know until about ten or 15 years down the road that they were exposed and they are suffering from the exposure.

We need to do something now. That's the demand of the legitimate contractors. That's the demand from the workers. That's the demand from WorkSafe B.C. I think it's the minister who has to give some direction to WorkSafe B.C. and give them tools so that they have those tools to shut down these contractors who are not following the rules.

[1755]

Hon. S. Bond: I am not, obviously, going to speak to the specifics of a case. I know that there are people who roll their eyes when I say it's before the courts. I take that very seriously. I was the Attorney General of British Columbia, and I'm not meddling in and influencing or jeopardizing a decision. There is a case before the courts.

I can assure the member opposite that WorkSafe uses every effort within its legal jurisdiction to deal with people who do not comply. That includes writing orders, shutting down worksites and imposing penalties. WorkSafe does that, and that is the expectation of not only the government, but British Columbians.

I do want to also clarify for the member opposite: the minister does not direct
[ Page 998 ]
WorkSafe. The mandate for WorkSafe B.C. is in the Workers Compensation Act. It is the law. The minister does not direct WorkSafe B.C.

H. Bains: I understand the minister does not direct WorkSafe B.C., but they report to you. They're a part of your ministry. Those workers and those families are looking to you so that WorkSafe B.C. will have the tools and the resources they need in order to shut those fly-by-night contractors, and that's not happening.

Here's an example. In 2012 WorkSafe B.C. issued three penalties, for $227,500 total, to Skylite Building Maintenance Ltd. for chronic, repeated violation of the occupational health and safety regulations and the Workers Compensation Act for exposing workers to asbestos. The company continued to ignore WorkSafe B.C. and changed its name to Seattle Environmental.

In September 2012 WorkSafe B.C. obtained a court order to prevent the company from exposing workers to asbestos. Since that order, WorkSafe B.C. found the owner had been in breach of the rules to protect workers from exposure to asbestos 51 times — since that order. WorkSafe B.C. filed an application to B.C. Supreme Court in April to fine the owner.

The question is…. The system that is in place is not working as far as this particular area. The workers and their families and the workers' representatives and legitimate employers are all looking for ways to shut those fly-by-night contractors who are exposing so many lives to this deadly disease.

WorkSafe B.C. is doing all they can, but they cannot shut them down. They continue to do what they are doing.

It is very well for the minister to say it's before the courts, but in the meantime, those workers are still being exposed. So what are we doing? What kind of hope are we giving to those workers that their lives are safe from asbestos exposure?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, we just need to walk through the basics of WorkSafe. The member actually…. I wrote it down: "The minister should direct WorkSafe B.C." That's actually what the member said.

I, and any minister, do not direct WorkSafe B.C. That is not within the mandate of a minister of the Crown.

Secondly, the member also said they're within my ministry. No, they are not. WorkSafe is an independent organization. There are clearly expectations that government has of WorkSafe B.C., and we can assure you that the first expectation is that workers in British Columbia — their safety is a priority.

The member is incorrect. WorkSafe does shut down bad operators in British Columbia. I am not going to comment on Skylite, because that case is currently before the courts. We agree there is an issue. That's why WorkSafe is in front of the courts with Skylite. I'm not going to comment on their individual or specific circumstances.

I can assure you that WorkSafe uses orders, and if there is imminent risk, they shut down work operations, and they also impose penalties. But the minister does not direct WorkSafe B.C.

[1800]

H. Bains: In this revised 2013-14 and 2015-16 service plan, it's clearly stated here that part of your goal is "creating safe, healthy and fair workplaces." That's what we're going by. And if you don't have any responsibility for that, you're simply saying that it's only WorkSafe B.C., that WorkSafe B.C. is the only one who's responsible, that they make their own rules and that they have their own act to follow. Fine. You can say that. But then don't put it in the service plan that that's a government responsibility: to create safe, healthy and fair workplaces.

Those questions are fair questions, on behalf of those workers, to make sure that their health and safety is protected. Right now, as it is, you may not want to talk about that particular case, as it's before the court, but there are others. WorkSafe B.C. is engaged in many other, similar cases out there, where the contractors are flagrantly, openly violating the WorkSafe B.C. acts. They change names, they move on, and WorkSafe B.C. is chasing them. What needs to be done so that those workers are not exposed to asbestos exposure anymore?

Hon. S. Bond: The general principles of a minister's responsibilities include a wide variety of things. Of course, worker safety is important to me and to this government.

Interjection.

Hon. S. Bond: No, there is a very specific difference when the member opposite suggests the minister should direct an organization that is, by law, able to make those decisions. That is not the role of the minister.

Is it my role to work with WorkSafe British Columbia and express expectations? Absolutely. And I can assure the member opposite that very recently one of the conversations I've had with WorkSafe was about sawmill safety in British Columbia.

Can I direct them? No, I cannot. But can I make clear the government's expectation about safety of workers in this province? Absolutely. That is something that I have already done and will continue to do over the course of time.

As I said to the member opposite, WorkSafe uses every effort within its legal jurisdiction. Within its legal jurisdiction it issues orders, and in fact, the numbers that I pointed out to the member opposite have grown exponentially in terms of the numbers of orders that are issued and the number of workers that are on site to make sure that they're doing the best possible job.

All of us recognize that we need to deal with the issue of asbestos, and WorkSafe is doing what it can, where it can — including orders, shutting down worksites and imposing penalties.
[ Page 999 ]

H. Bains: I think we're playing words here: "direct" versus "expectation." To them, it's the same thing. The minister meets with the WorkSafe B.C. executive and CEO and says: "These are my expectations to make sure that those workers are protected." And what are they doing to ensure that the minister's expectations of that are being done?

In the meantime, what I'm bringing to the minister's attention is that it's not being done. Your ministerial expectations are not being met — that's what I'm suggesting to you here — at least in this particular area. And it goes on every day.

Here is another area that perhaps the minister could embark on. I'm advised that last year the minister, who was then the Attorney General, met with families of workers killed on jobs due to negligence by the employer. It was reported that the Attorney General at that time, the current Minister of Jobs, committed to a series of actions to ensuring justice for people killed on the job due to employer negligence.

Could the minister advise this House now of what those commitments were? What are the extents to which each has been acted upon?

Hon. S. Bond: I don't have the entire list with me — because, obviously, I dealt with that as the Attorney General. But there will be carryover into this ministry. I was very pleased to work constructively with Jim Sinclair, representing the B.C. Federation of Labour. Mr. Sinclair came to me and expressed concerns about the effective use of Bill C-45 and whether or not, in jurisdictions across the country, that legislation, which allows there to be prosecution for liability for employers, has actually worked.

[1805]

I was very compelled, not just by the stories of the families but by the work the B.C. Federation of Labour had done on that file. I agreed with Mr. Sinclair that I would take that issue to the national table, and that's exactly what I did. On behalf of British Columbia's workers and families, I took that to the national agenda. In fact, we now have the federal government looking at Bill C-45 because of the work British Columbia did to lead that initiative.

I made a commitment to families that I would work hard to look at whether or not that bill, that law, was actually effective. In fact, there have been no prosecutions, or very few, across the country. So I really appreciated the fact that Mr. Sinclair came and talked to me about that.

I remain committed to ensuring there is follow-up at the national level and brought that issue up with the brand-new Minister of Labour, who called me just last week. That was one of my three priority issues that I brought to the table.

In addition to that, there were other matters that would need to be pursued with the current Attorney General, things like a dedicated prosecutor that looks at those issues. I was informed at the time that there are people with specialized skills who could deal with prosecutions specifically. That was another request of the B.C. Federation of Labour and of those families.

I am very sympathetic to that issue. I have demonstrated progress and followed up on those commitments that I made.

H. Bains: I do appreciate this minister's initiatives and the steps that she's taken, taking this issue very, very seriously — you know, sitting down with those families who have lost their loved ones in the workplace, where it can be clearly seen that it probably was because of the negligence of the employer.

Many attempts have been made since that time. I mean, those three workers killed in a farm vehicle — charges were recommended but couldn't go anywhere. The Crown prosecutor chose not to proceed with it. A sawmill worker who was killed in a New Westminster Weyerhaeuser mill — again, RCMP investigation. Charges were again not proceeded with. It actually took the union to go the private prosecutor route to push the issue. Again, our Crown prosecutor didn't push the issue for a full hearing.

I think the issue here for a minister is this. I agree with you, and I know that you agree with this issue and take it seriously. But I think the attempt needs to be made, and we need to explore this area.

Yes, there's a federal jurisdiction issue here, Bill C-45. But what can we do here provincially? When we look at a fatality in the workplace, why is that fatality not considered similar to a fatality outside a workplace?

When there's an accident and there's a death, the RCMP close off the area until they are satisfied that nothing is in there that they could see whether somebody is culpable and that charges need to be laid. It's blocked off. But in the case of a fatality at a workplace, WorkSafe B.C. comes in to do the investigation, and then it's open. The area isn't sealed for police investigation to come and to make sure that they look at all of the evidence, do a proper investigation to see whether charges should be laid, whether someone else is responsible for the death that had occurred.

I think those are some of the tools that we need in the system. A private prosecutor is one area, but I think it goes way before that. That is, at the time of the fatality, what happens? What proceeds after that, following the fatality — you know, the investigation, WCB? And when does the RCMP come in?

I think that's where we need to look at if the minister is committed to speaking to the current Attorney General and Solicitor General — whoever's responsibility it may be — to make sure we could put those guidelines together so that it is treated no differently, those deaths are treated no differently than deaths outside.
[ Page 1000 ]

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the support of the staff reminding me — a lot of files in this ministry. But I should speak directly to the issue of police, because in thinking through….

[1810]

When I met with the B.C. Federation of Labour, I also, at a subsequent meeting, brought together — I don't want to say the chief executives — the members representing the deputy commissioner of the RCMP here in British Columbia. So I brought the B.C. Federation of Labour and police together.

In fact, since that time, an MOU has been signed between police, WorkSafe and others to talk about the very issue that the member has brought up. Again, progress made on that file. An MOU is signed, and I did bring together police, WorkSafe and others — the B.C. Federation of Labour. There is now an MOU in place that addresses some of the concerns the member has brought up.

H. Bains: The plan, it seems to me, is not the way I designed. I still have some more questions on WorkSafe B.C., if we could come back to it tomorrow.

We have some questions from my colleague here for North Island.

C. Trevena: I have just, hopefully, two questions. I'm very cognizant of the time. One is a question on behalf of my constituency, and the other is in my role as Transportation critic. I'll start with my question on behalf of my constituency, because it might be a conversation separately with the minister beyond the estimates process.

When I was in the previous parliament, I was talking with her predecessor, Pat Bell, about the importance of tourism jobs in the north Island. We have, as the minister knows, a forest industry and a very healthy forest sector. Trying to get the balance between tourism and the forest sector, we have a number of ecotourism operators that are concerned that there is often a lack of balance there.

I wondered, from the minister, just her initial thoughts on this and whether possibly we could have a discussion. There are some specific tourism operators who'd like very much to meet with her. They extended an invitation to her predecessor to come up, see the operation and see how we can work together with the forest sector.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm smiling because I turned around and it's the WorkSafe crew behind me. They had a deer-in-the-headlights look when we started talking about tourism. But they're fine.

Obviously, it's a beautiful part of the province. I'm happy to be collaborative and work with tourism operators. I know also that the minister of state is very interested in looking at the small business of…. You know, the vast majority of tourism operators are small businesses. So I'm very pleased about the combination of her role, which will look at small business and tourism. So either she or I would be…. I'm making a commitment on her behalf, so I'm sure someone on her staff is writing this down madly, watching television. I'm sure that one of us would be happy to participate.

I'm also pleased to advise the member that one of our staff is actually in her part of the province today meeting with tourism operators and getting some input, we hope, and feedback. But I'm happy to participate and very much interested in finding ways to support smaller tourism operators.

[1815]

C. Trevena: I appreciate that, Minister. And for the WorkSafe B.C. crew behind her — they're well advised.

I will relay that. I think that your member of staff is talking to the tourism organization that I'm referring to and Spirit of the West and others. So we'll proceed with that in the coming months, I hope.

The other question I have is relating to my role as the Transportation critic. As the minister is well aware, we've had the confirmation that we're going to get three new ferries. B.C. Ferries is going to have three new ferries. We haven't had indication that those ferries will be built in B.C. The Premier had mentioned 18 months ago that new B.C. ferries would be built in B.C.

I was wondering whether the Jobs Ministry has done an analysis of the return on investment of building those ferries in B.C. — not just on the cost, obviously, of purchasing the ferries but the number of jobs created, the taxes that would be paid and, actually, the return to the B.C. economy if those ferries were built in B.C.

Hon. S. Bond: No. To answer the member's question, the ministry has not done an analysis on return on investment.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister. Will the ministry be doing an analysis, in light of the fact that we have got the shipbuilding contracts? This is going to be a major opportunity for shipbuilding, because these three ferries are going to be, likely, the same model that B.C. Ferries would be using for many of what it describes as its intermediate ferries. So it would be nice to know that there was that analysis being done.

Hon. S. Bond: I apologize to the member opposite. I think this is best canvassed with the Minister of Transportation.

H. Bains: Maybe we could get in a few more questions. Maybe WorkSafe B.C. could…. I don't know. What time do we have?

We'll just go to the benefit levels that were reduced, I think, back in 2002-2003. It used to be 75 percent of
[ Page 1001 ]
the gross income. It was brought down to 90 percent of the net income. Does the minister, through the people that are here, have any expectation for WorkSafe B.C. to have those benefits raised back to at least 75 percent of the gross?

Hon. S. Bond: The changes were introduced because, in fact, there needed to be stability. There needed to be fiscal stability. The system was actually, in many ways, not providing an incentive for workers to go back to work, when you looked at the numbers that British Columbia had in place at that time.

I should point out that British Columbia's numbers in terms of percentage maximum earnings are actually very much in line with Alberta's. Ontario is actually at 5 percent less than us, and Quebec is at a similar level.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:20 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 © 2013: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada