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)

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 4, Number 5

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

WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 2013

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

J. Thornthwaite: I just wanted to report that today — with the assistance of the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training, as well as the Minister of State for Tourism and Small Business — I met with Peter Leitch, who's the president of North Shore Studios, as well as Cheryl Nex, who's the president of Entertainment Partners Canada. We had a great meeting about our government's support for the film industry.

[1335]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Madame Speaker, I know that every member of this House has a support network, and it's my real pleasure to introduce my biggest supporter: my wife, Charlene, who's in the House for question period for the first time today. I ask the House to welcome her.

K. Conroy: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce a longtime family friend to the Legislature today. He's also a good friend of many people on this side of the House. Leo Gerard, the international president of the Steelworkers, is here with us today. Could you all please join me in making him welcome?

N. Letnick: Apparently, British Columbians drink 50 million bottles of wine a year — 50 million bottles of British Columbian, Canadian wines a year — and some from Manitoba, absolutely — and hopefully a lot of them from Quails Gate Winery, because I'm here to introduce Ben Stewart, who is in the House. Welcome.

Statements

SLO-PITCH GAME WITH MEDIA

G. Hogg: The media often comment on our performances, and on occasion we should return that favour. Last night the media played the government staff in a slo-pitch game, and in the drama of extra innings, Jonathan Fowlie was on third base, poised to win the game when he froze and, therefore, was able to steal defeat from the jaws of victory.

There were some awards which were given out. The worst fielder goes to Tom Fletcher; the worst batter, Sean Leslie. And the best player on the media team was a player loaned from our staff, Lynette Butcher. The two best decision-makers of the evening go to Vaughn Palmer and Craig McInnes for not stepping onto the playing field.

Would you please join me in congratulating the media for even showing up and congratulating our staff for a dominant performance over a dormant team.

Introductions by Members

A. Weaver: The House heard yesterday about Victoria's achievements from the member for Victoria–Swan Lake, and today I'm pleased to acknowledge and celebrate Victoria's incredible success in another sport. That's the sport of rowing.

Joining us in the gallery today are three local constituents, one of whom is 16-year-old Cecilia Filipone, who happens to go to a high school that my mother taught at for many years, St. Andrews Regional High School. She stroked to victory at the recent Canadian high school rowing championships in St. Catharines, Ontario. She won gold in both the junior girls doubles and the junior girls quads. She is visiting the House today with her mother, Mary Anne, and her sister Gina. Would the House please make them all welcome.

Hon. A. Virk: It's my pleasure to introduce my guests personally today. First of all, I have in the audience a university student and also my constituent assistant, Jared Penland. I have up in the stands as well a friend and volunteer and confidant extraordinaire, Mala Gill. Also, a partner of mine: my spouse, my wife, my confidante of 24 years, two months, four days and 1½ hours — not that I'm counting — Jatinder Virk. Will the House please make them welcome.

Statements

B.C. BEEF DAY AND RANCHING INDUSTRY

Hon. P. Pimm: Today is Beef Day, the fourth time we celebrate here in the Legislature. In addition to meetings between ranchers and government officials throughout the day, this is also a time to celebrate a strong partnership — a partnership which we have developed between the provincial government, the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, B.C. Association of Cattle Feeders and the B.C. Association of Abattoirs.

Joining us today in the House are a number of representatives from the cattle industry. In the gallery this afternoon are David Haywood-Farmer, president of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association; Bill Freding, B.C. Association of Cattle Feeders; and Dennis Gunter, B.C. Association of Abattoirs. I hope the House will help me make them all welcome here today.
[ Page 1004 ]

Introductions by Members

S. Hamilton: It is my pleasure to introduce three of my guests in the House today. First of all, we have in the gallery Laura Dixon, the chair of our Delta school district. We have Dale Saip, the vice-chair of Delta school board, and Delta school district superintendent, Dianne Turner.

[1340]

They've come to our capital today to discuss issues of common interest. These people work very hard on behalf of the students in our district under very often trying circumstances. For all their efforts and commitment, I ask the House to make them feel very welcome.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I'm very pleased today to introduce two special people who have have come to Victoria, Bob and Eunice Kruse. They're actually residents in the riding of West Vancouver–Capilano, but they do live in North Vancouver. Bob was on the A-team of door-knockers, and I appreciate all the support he has given us.

I want to mention something that Bob said today at lunch. He said the last time he was at QP, at question period, was when W.A.C. Bennett was the Premier. Welcome back. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

D. Barnett: Today in the House — hopefully he is here — is a constituent of mine. I don't have the privilege very often of having somebody from the Chilcotin come to Victoria, but he's a great advocate for his community. He's the past director of the Cariboo regional district. He's a member of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. I ask the House to help me welcome Rick Mumford.

J. Tegart: It's with great pleasure that I rise to introduce John and Kate Anderson, here from Merritt today, and also David Haywood-Farmer, who is the president of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, from Fraser-Nicola. Ranching is an important industry in our area, and I hope the House will help me welcome them.

Madame Speaker: Member, continue.

J. Tegart: Continuing, I'd like to introduce constituents from the member for Parksville-Qualicum's riding, who is racing in France, as we know. Joining us today are Warren and Maureen Cudney with their 14-year-old daughter, Hannah, and 11-year-old Maya.

These incredible young ladies are the founders of a charity called Hope Rope, which began in 2007 and was founded on the principle that one person can make a difference in the world, but joined by many, together we can make big changes. Together they've created one-of-a-kind, unique bracelets that they sell.

All of the money they raise through the sale of their bracelets is given directly to charities. To date, the girls have raised over $25,000 and have supported organizations such as the Canadian cancer foundation, Rick Hansen Foundation, Mayan Families, Heart and Stroke Foundation and many local food banks. Will the House please help me make them welcome.

M. Dalton: In the House today we have Tim Schindel. Tim is with us most every day during QP. Tim is the president of Leading Influence Ministries, which provides chaplaincy service for MLAs on both sides of the House. I personally want to thank Tim and also the Canadian Bible Society for providing the leather Bibles to all of us the past couple of weeks. I've enjoyed it and have been reading it. Would the House please make him feel welcome.

Tributes

JIM BRASS

Hon. D. McRae: It is with great sadness I rise today in this Legislature and speak of the passing of Dr. Jim Brass. Jim was many things to the Comox Valley, and at his service last Saturday he was honoured by his family, his friends and his colleagues. Jim Brass was mayor of Comox from 2002 to 2008. He was an avid mariner and hobby farmer. Professionally, he was a dentist in Comox and in the military before that. He became president of the College of Dental Surgeons of British Columbia and was awarded the distinguished service award from the organization in 2012.

Jim is survived by his wife, Susan; his children, Lindsay, Heather, Dann and Jamie. Jim left us far too early. He'll be missed by all. I ask the House to give him a round of applause for a life well lived — just not long enough. [Applause.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Rustad: As with the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, it's not often I get a chance to introduce guests that have travelled down to the great city of Victoria. Of course, today being B.C. Beef Day, it was a great opportunity for all of us to celebrate beef.

[1345]

Down from my riding were Ken and Carolyn Fawcett, who are avid ranchers. They've been in the community and around Vanderhoof for many, many years in the industry. I'd like the House to please make them welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

B.C. BEEF DAY AND RANCHING INDUSTRY

D. Barnett: Today we are celebrating the 4th annual B.C. Beef Day. There are over 4,000 ranchers around the
[ Page 1005 ]
province providing employment and income for thousands of British Columbians. Ranchers are the stewards of the land. They understand the importance of good, sound land management, since without this, their livelihood would be gone.

Ranching is an industry that needs and deserves our continued support. Over the past decade our province, together with the federal government, has provided over $200 million to cattle ranchers in British Columbia. We will continue to work with ranchers to help them continue to produce the great beef we all love. Both international markets and promoting B.C. beef at home are important for this industry.

One of the ways for every one of us to support our ranchers is to enjoy B.C.-grown beef at home or in restaurants that use beef sourced from our province. We also need school programs to encourage our young people to consider going into ranching as a profession. I hope everyone had the chance to enjoy some high-quality B.C.-grown beef today at the barbecue celebrating our ranching industry. Today we didn't ask: "Where's the beef?" Today we ate the beef.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OF
FRASER RIVER ESTUARY

V. Huntington: Two years ago I rose in the House to talk about the importance of protecting the Fraser River Estuary. I spoke about the need for an environmental management plan for the Lower Fraser, and I lamented that the Fraser River Estuary Management Program, or FREMP, seemed to be struggling under changing mandates and new partners.

From 1985 to 2013 FREMP coordinated the labyrinth of agencies responsible for development applications on the Fraser River. It enabled the Ministry of Environment, Fraser River Port Authority, then the Port of Vancouver, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, Metro Vancouver, Delta and Richmond, among other agencies, to create consensus in a manner that recognized local and national environmental values.

Earlier this year the federal government cut $150,000 from FREMP and its Burrard Inlet sister agency, forcing the office to close. While the partner organizations continue to meet, they do so without a dedicated organization to support their work. We are left with a troubling situation. Port Metro Vancouver was the lead agency for many project reviews under FREMP and firmly exercised its jurisdiction. In the absence of FREMP, it is now the interim coordinating agency.

While the agencies continue to collaborate, there are considerable public concerns about the port's ability to act in an impartial manner. Putting an organization in charge of the environmental reviews that affect its own interests is a bit like putting the wolf in charge of the sheep.

The Fraser River Estuary is vital to the environmental and economic health of our province. We are in dire need of an organization that is dedicated to the protection of this vital ecosystem. FREMP was an invaluable collaboration that attempted to impartially protect the great Fraser River. Its loss is a loss to all of B.C., and it is imperative the province step into the vacuum created by its demise.

MARPOLE PLACE NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSE

Moira Stilwell: My riding of Vancouver-Langara is home to Marpole, one of our region's oldest neighbourhoods. Once a major industrial centre boasting sawmills and gravel companies, the community is now a hub for shopping, dining and the arts. So ingrained is Marpole in the history, culture and pulse of Vancouver that many hot spots, such as the Granville strip, have become iconic landmarks that are indelibly linked to the images that represent the city. Marpole has even been featured in classic Canadian literature, such as Joy Kogawa's powerful novel, Obasan.

A real jewel in the neighbourhood is Marpole Place Neighbourhood House. Run by the Marpole Oakridge Area Council Society, Marpole Place offers residents a variety of health, language, social and recreational services designed to connect citizens to the community and each other.

[1350]

Marpole Place found a permanent home in 1985, when the organization moved into The Old Firehall on West 70th and Hudson. For nearly 30 years staff members have worked tirelessly to create a family-friendly atmosphere that provides educational opportunities for all ages, while supporting the well-being of the community.

The facility has also played an integral role in helping new immigrants integrate into the community and overcome language barriers. On any given night you can find new residents at Marpole Place learning English, developing their computer skills and creating lasting relationships with other residents.

Marpole Place isn't just promoting community; it's creating it as well. On August 10 the organization will be hosting its annual Connecting Marpole Day, and I encourage everyone to come out, take part in the celebration and experience what it's like to feel a part of our community.

EDMONDS CITY FAIR
AND CLASSIC CAR SHOW

R. Chouhan: This past Sunday our community celebrated the annual Edmonds City Fair and Classic Car and Motorcycle Show. For almost a decade, this free family event has brought together the diverse community of Edmonds to celebrate the exciting new growth and changes to our community, like our new community centre
[ Page 1006 ]
with a pool named after the late Fred Randall, the former MLA for Burnaby-Edmonds from 1991 to 2001.

The street festival had something for everyone. As I walked along the street eating mini-doughnuts — and I think you can see the effect of it here — it was a pleasure to see local children enjoying the free rides and petting zoo. There was a stage featuring local multicultural talent and youth and local live bands, including an Elvis impersonator who kept our constituency tent rocking all day; the international fair where Edmonds's diverse community showcased their costumes from many countries; and over 100 classic cars on display.

A big thank-you to the many volunteers who worked very hard to make it a big success — particularly to Paul McDonell, a city councillor, for his passion and dedication to keep this festival going since 2004. Under the leadership of the city of Burnaby and in cooperation with the community leaders and local businesses, I congratulate them on organizing another successful local festival that builds community and brings awareness to a growing neighbourhood that has much to offer.

MURAL DEPICTING
MISSION AREA HISTORY

M. Dalton: Fifty-four feet wide and 16 feet high on the outside wall of the Mission Community Archives building stands a new mural commemorating Mission's 120th anniversary. It's the brainchild of the Val Billesberger, the Mission community archivist, and local artists Christina and Dean Lauze, working in conjunction with the Mission Soapbox Derby Association. Dean and Christina's work is found throughout the province, including the recently unveiled statue to fallen firefighters here on the legislative grounds.

Val and others with the Mission Community Archives and the Mission Historical Society worked tirelessly to preserve our local history, and have done a great job.

Prominently displayed in the centre of the mural to honour our First Peoples is Hatzic Rock and a young Stó:lo dancer. According to legend, this is where three chiefs were transformed into a rock for their disobedience. It's also located at the oldest archeological site in British Columbia, some 6,000 years old.

There is also a portrait of the Benedictine abbey built in 1939 and overlooking the Fraser Valley. About 30 monks work and live here, and their motto is "Work and pray."

Mission is also a great place to play. The annual soapbox derby, which began over 60 years ago, is evidence of this, and is featured on the mural. Logging and farming images display the economic history of the Mission area, as well as honouring the men and women who have built Mission and will continue to make it the great place that it is.

The artwork has transformed a parking lot into another attractive community gathering place. Knowing what has happened before us deepens our appreciation for our city. The mural not only beautifies Mission but helps us connect with our roots.

KOREAN HERITAGE DAY
FESTIVAL IN COQUITLAM

S. Robinson: Since its establishment in 2001 the Korean Cultural Heritage Society has been sharing Korean culture with the broader community, introducing us to the likes of kimchi and Gangnam-style dance through Korean Heritage Day Festival, an annual festival celebrating the Korean-Canadian community in the Lower Mainland. This one-day event showcases so much of what the Korean heritage has to offer. We get to see cultural performances, food and, of course, community gatherings.

[1355]

For the past five years this annual event has been held in my constituency at Blue Mountain Park in Coquitlam. I've been attending this event for the past few years as a Coquitlam city councillor, and this year I am so pleased to be there as the MLA for the community.

Each year the festival has grown and has since become the most anticipated and celebrated event for the Korean community in the Lower Mainland. This annual event is a collaborative effort of many dedicated community organizations, artists, performers and volunteers. More than 10,000 visitors to the event benefit from the hard work of the organizers: Grace Jong Eun Lee, Shay Park, Vivian Chung and Alvin Kim.

This year the event is on Saturday, August 10, from 11 to four at Blue Mountain Park in Coquitlam. Please join us for the free community event, where you can take in various forms of Korean dance, Korean drumming — which is my favourite — a bit of kimbap and other Korean delicacies. And this year there will be a special emphasis on K-pop. Join us for some Gangnam-style dance and music, and let me know if you need any lessons. [Korean was spoken.]

Oral Questions

WHEELCHAIR FEES IN
RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES

A. Dix: Last month we learned the Fraser Health Authority will begin charging the Premier's $300-a-year wheelchair tax on vulnerable seniors in residential care, taking advantage of a government policy change that enabled the tax. Today we learn that not only did the government enable the new tax on vulnerable seniors; it actually made it happen. A Fraser Health briefing note obtained through freedom of information shows the Ministry of Health requested Fraser Health to implement wheelchair maintenance fees.

Can the Minister of Health confirm that in fact it was
[ Page 1007 ]
on the ministry's instructions that Fraser Health decided to charge this uncaring tax, and can he further confirm if the ministry asked other health authorities to do the same?

Hon. T. Lake: I would remind the member opposite that British Columbia currently spends $1.7 billion every year to subsidize the province's comprehensive residential care and assisted-living services. That is an increase of $600 million in the last 12 years.

While residential care is a person's home, and while the public health system covers the cost of medical and health care needs, residents pay for the cost of their personal equipment and supplies, just as they would if they lived in the community, as I explained during estimates debate yesterday.

But I will say this: no vulnerable senior citizen will be denied a service if they cannot afford a particular equipment or aid in a publicly subsidized residential care space in the province of British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

A. Dix: When this wheelchair tax was announced — and I guess the minister may be arguing it's not a medical or health care need — the government blamed the health authorities. They said: "It's the health authorities that did this. It wasn't us; it's the health authorities." Oh, not all the government said that. The Premier said it's something that's done by almost all the health authorities in the province and had been done for a while, which would have been a better defence, except all the facts contained within it are wrong.

In fact, we know that the very briefing note says that residents were to be informed by April 1. We know that this did not happen. Conveniently for the government, no one knew about the tax until after the election.

Fraser Health said that the decision to impose the wheelchair tax — in the document — was made after discussions that began in late 2012, presumably after Fraser Health got its marching orders. Can the minister tell this House when the decision was finalized, and can he tell the House — a very simple question: did the government order the other health authorities to do the same thing?

Hon. T. Lake: This is a chargeable fee that is allowed under the regulations in British Columbia. There was a patchwork of approaches across the province.

[1400]

If there was a non-profit-owned and -operated facility, they may charge a fee. If there was a private facility that had publicly funded beds, the residents were expected to have their own wheelchairs. In the health-authority-owned and -operated beds, again there was a patchwork of approaches.

The ministry sat down with health authorities and said: "We need a consistent approach to make sure that all residential care patients are being treated equally and fairly across the province of British Columbia." We are working with the health authorities to make sure there is clear communication with residents and their families about the allowable charges.

But I repeat: no one that is unable to pay a wheelchair fee will pay a wheelchair fee in British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

A. Dix: The minister should know that the government enabled the health authorities to do this in 2010. The health authorities decided not to do it on their own because it's a lousy and unfair idea. In fact, the very briefing note, the very assessment that was obtained through FOI, rated this decision minus 13, which admittedly is better than minus 14, but I don't think it's very good. In fact, what the Fraser Health Authority says is it's the very reason they didn't do this until the government made them do it.

It's very simple. The question is actually a very simple factual question. Has the government ordered other health authorities to do this? They enabled it in 2010. The health authorities decided the government had a lousy idea, and then the government made them do it after the election.

It's a very simple question to the minister. It's a lousy idea. Why doesn't he walk it back? And can he tell us if he ordered the other health authorities to do the same thing?

Hon. T. Lake: I will tell the opposition leader what we have done. What we have done since 2001 is build 5,000 long-term residential and assisted living spaces in the province of British Columbia. The member opposite would suggest that it is fair for someone living in the community to pay for their mobility aids and that someone in a publicly subsidized facility should not have to.

We are about fairness, and we are about consistency, which is why we have worked with the health authorities to ensure that there is clear communication with patients and their families. Every one of them has a policy that if the patient cannot afford the rental fee on a wheelchair, it will be waived.

K. Conroy: Sometime in late 2012 the government told Fraser Health to begin charging this uncaring wheelchair tax. But it also made sure that no word of its plans came out until after the election, squelching Fraser Health's plans to announce the new tax on April 1, 2013. How fair is that? Now it blames health authorities for the decision.

Let's be clear. This was the government's decision, the government's directive. It's all there in Fraser Health's
[ Page 1008 ]
briefing note. To the Minister of Health: when will he admit that this is the government's plan, that all along it was going to force health authorities to charge this uncaring $300-a-year wheelchair tax, and when will he reverse that decision and withdraw the tax?

Hon. T. Lake: To the member opposite, we canvassed this yesterday in estimates, so I know she has heard the answer. There has always been the ability to charge for wheelchair maintenance fees for publicly funded beds at residential care facilities. As it turned out, there was a patchwork of approaches which was patently unfair to some residents of long-term residential care facilities.

[1405]

The ministry worked with the health authorities, and there is a fact sheet on our website which demonstrates what are the allowable fees. Every health authority has a policy in place to ensure that if a family cannot afford the fee to service a wheelchair — which is important. These wheelchairs are used from one patient to another patient. Following their use they have to be maintained; they have to be disinfected. If they cannot afford that wheelchair fee, it will be waived in every case.

Madame Speaker: Member for Kootenay West on a supplemental.

K. Conroy: Beds have to be disinfected too. Are they going to be next to be charged in this province?

In February of 2012 the Ombudsperson released part 2 of her report on seniors. She made hundreds of recommendations, one of which was not to raise fees for seniors. Despite this recommendation, the government instructed Fraser Health to impose this uncaring tax on vulnerable seniors in residential care.

How can the minister justify ignoring the Ombudsperson's recommendations? Will he admit he is callously adding unnecessary hardship to vulnerable seniors? Seniors in this province deserve better.

Hon. T. Lake: It is the fact that a person living in the community, if they need a mobility device, has to pay for their mobility device unless they are on assistance from the province of British Columbia. The member opposite would say that we have to pay for every mobility device in the province.

What we do is that if someone is in publicly funded long-term residential care, we ensure that there is consistency in terms of what the facility operator is allowed to charge. That consistency must be communicated to the patient and their family, and if there is a difficulty in managing that cost, they can apply to the health authority for a waiver which will be granted. We will not leave any vulnerable seniors in residential care having to pay for a fee they cannot afford.

REPLACEMENT FOR BCeSIS
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

R. Fleming: Today the Minister of Education finally announced a replacement for the failed BCeSIS student enrolment software system, a system that the Liberals wasted $100 million of taxpayers' money on and was flawed from the start.

This isn't the only high-priced IT failure that taxpayers have been on the hook for. There is the criminal justice security system, JUSTIN, and the infamous child protection ICM system which the Representative for Children and Youth describes as a colossal failure.

My question is for the Minister of Education. Given this government's wasteful track record on IT projects, how can the minister assure British Columbians that his government won't be wasting $100 million more of their tax dollars before he signs a new 12-year deal?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I'm delighted to answer my first question in the House about….

Interjections.

Hon. P. Fassbender: To the member opposite, I want to correct one major misstatement. That misstatement is that this BCeSIS was a colossal failure.

It was not. Indeed, it provided one of the most robust student information systems in the country. It provided the ability to store information about students' attendance and performance, providing teachers with tools to help them to ensure that the students' needs were being met.

[1410]

I can stand here today and say yes, indeed, there were challenges with the new technology. We have learned from that, and we're moving forward to a system that is going to be even better than the previous one and is going to ensure that we can provide personalized education and information for students throughout the province.

R. Fleming: The minister can argue that the BCeSIS system wasn't a colossal failure, but I'm pretty sure that his press release this morning finally told British Columbians that that system is on the scrap heap.

It's not just $100 million of provincial taxpayers' money that was wasted. It's tens of millions of dollars further that boards of education had to put into staff resources and IT patches over a system that, ultimately, when it was independently reviewed beyond the Minister of Education, was described as a failure and replaced.

It's no surprise that there is a lack of trust amongst boards of education about B.C. Liberal competence in managing IT procurement processes. That's led to six districts developing their own system and opting out of the one that government provides.
[ Page 1009 ]

Again, I would ask the Minister of Education: why should boards of education trust that this new system is going to, again, not put them at financial risk for a product that doesn't work?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I think if we want to talk about scrap heaps, there are a couple of ferries that I could take the member to that never got used because they were truly a colossal failure.

I'll remind the member that, currently, there are 56 school districts and 100 independent schools using the current system. While it has had challenges, it is providing the information it was designed to do.

I'll also remind the member that the ministry engaged an independent report. That report from Gartner, who did the report, said that we have a good, stable student information system that's meeting the needs of the school districts in the province.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF
JET FUEL SYSTEM PROPOSAL
FOR VANCOUVER AIRPORT

V. Huntington: Even I have to smile at that answer.

On December 14, 2012, the environmental assessment office forwarded its assessment report and recommendations on the Vancouver Airport jet fuel facility project on the Fraser River to the Minister of Environment. On January 25 the minister extended the time limit for making the decision, and on February 25 the minister suspended the assessment.

The minister was of the opinion that the provincial land process and the provincial marine process, studies that were exploring land and marine spill response capabilities in the province, were "material to the environmental assessment of the proposed marine terminal and jet fuel storage facility."

The executive director of the assessment office was directed to consider the findings of both an interim report on land-based spills and of the marine report, and to provide a supplement to the recommendations that were already in the minister's hands.

When does the minister expect the supplement to the referral package to be in her hands? And prior to sending the supplement to the minister, will the EAO initiate a public comment period on the new and material information?

[1415]

Hon. M. Polak: I know that the member is aware that the suspension awaiting those reports was subsequently lifted. Then the Ministry of Environment advised the environmental assessment office that the complete report on marine spill response had not been provided to them. They'd only had one part of it. They recognized the error. The suspension now remains in place.

I can tell the member that when the reports are finally received in full, then there will be the 75-day clock ticking from that point forward, and I can assure the member that the ordinary processes will unfold.

I will say with respect to public commentary…. In particular with the spills intentions paper, it has received a significant amount of public commentary. We, of course, are interested in the community's views along with the scientific response and reports that we have received.

Madame Speaker: Member for Delta South on a supplemental.

V. Huntington: What we really do need to know is whether the EAO will hold a public comment period on those new studies prior to the minister making her decision.

In 1988 a federal minister–appointed environmental assessment panel reviewed an almost identical application on the north arm of the Fraser. The panel's terms of reference went far beyond the EAO assessment of today — an assessment that isn't even required of the applicant, given the erosion of our environmental protection laws.

There was a public review to gather statements, followed by a scoping workshop, followed by written submissions, followed by four full days of public hearings. The panel found that "the lower Fraser River and its estuary represent a biologically productive ecosystem of national and international significance — all five species of salmon, the largest and most important area for migratory birds in B.C."

The panel recommended that the minister unconditionally reject the proposal as posing an unacceptably high risk of damage to the Fraser Estuary. Would the minister commit to this House that prior to making a decision on the EAO referral package and supplement, she will review the 1988 environmental assessment panel's report in its entirety?

Hon. M. Polak: I am happy to commit to the member that I will consider any and all relevant information, including the public commentary that has been a part of the report and the initial assessment. All of that will be taken into account by me when I reach a decision.

PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES AT
B.C. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL

S. Hammell: Children's Hospital's child psychiatry in-patient unit is one of only three highly specialized mental health treatment facilities available to B.C. children. As of August 19, the unit will no longer offer the necessary 24-7 services to children and youth with severe mental health challenges. Under the reduced program, these vulnerable children and their families will have only access to a Monday-to-Friday day program.
[ Page 1010 ]

Can the Minister of Health explain how drastically reducing the services provided by this program is in the best interest of our province's most vulnerable children?

Hon. T. Lake: The Provincial Health Services Authority has told the ministry that they are involved in confidential discussions with the union about the change in the care model and the impact on staff. We're restricted in what we can share, but I will say this. The new model is designed to ensure that they have the staff performing the roles best suited for their skill set and best suited to meet the needs of their patients.

Madame Speaker: Surrey–Green Timbers on a supplemental.

S. Hammell: The children who are admitted to Children's Hospital child psychiatry in-patient unit have the most severe health challenges in the province. For example, in the Representative for Children and Youth's report regarding the case of the young boy who was tasered, this program stands out as one of the only appropriate services he was offered.

[1420]

The report notes that the 24-7 unit provided the kind of consistency and predictability that this young boy needed to stabilize. This can't be provided by a Monday-to-Friday day program. Will the Minister of Health act immediately to prevent cuts to this most important program?

Hon. T. Lake: Children's Hospital is a model of the world, in fact, in looking after the needs of young, vulnerable British Columbians. They have said that children and families requiring overnight beds will, in fact, be accommodated.

I will just emphasize once again that the new model that the PHSA and Children's are working towards will make sure that the best staff, performing the appropriate roles and meeting the needs of the patients, will be employed. The changes are, in fact, about following best practices in working with children, and they will, in fact, result in a higher nurse-to-patient ratio.

K. Corrigan: Providing overnight care on an ad hoc basis will not meet the needs of our most vulnerable young psychiatric patients. Five psychiatric counsellor positions are also currently on the chopping block, and they'll be replaced by one part-time nurse.

Susan Anthony is a parent from my community whose child went through this program, and she's made it very clear that these counsellors are integral to the success of the treatment program. I think that I'll just, as a question, quote from a letter that Susan Anthony sent.

She said: "How can the removal of five highly trained youth and family counsellors and subsequently replacing them with a part-time nurse improve the quality of care for children and their families?"

Hon. T. Lake: I mentioned that there are confidential discussions with the union about the change in the care model. But the new model is to ensure that the staff are performing the appropriate roles and meeting the highest needs of the patients.

This side of the House has put $8 billion into health care facilities in this province over the last 12 years. To come is a redesign, a redevelopment, of Children's Hospital. It is a model around the world. We are assured and we are confident that Children's is providing the highest level of care for children of the province of British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: Well, what seems to be happening are cuts to this program. And that's what the motivation is for this government.

This is what Susan Anthony…. She may have a different feeling about these cuts than the minister does. What she says, and she's a parent whose child went through it: "Reducing the program to a Monday-to-Friday out-patient program would drastically decrease its effectiveness. That it was a six-week, in-patient program was hugely important."

In Susan's own words, she said: "Again, I can honestly tell you that this program saved our family."

So I'm appealing to the minister today. Please ensure that this program is saved so that other parents like Susan know that if their child needs this program, it's going to be there, and it's going to be intact for those children.

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned, I have been told and I am confident that the ability of the Provincial Health Services Authority to look after the needs of vulnerable young British Columbians will, in fact, be delivered.

This government has increased health care spending $7.8 billion since 2001, and an additional $2.4 billion will be going into health care over the next three years.

[1425]

On this side of the House we have made significant investments, and we'll continue to put significant investments not only into facilities but into health authorities to protect the health of British Columbians.

UNEMPLOYMENT LEVELS AND
USE OF FOREIGN WORKERS

B. Routley: A University of Calgary study that has been just recently released suggests that the temporary foreign worker program is being used to fill jobs in regions in British Columbia, for example, where unemploy-
[ Page 1011 ]
ment rates are already high.

We know that B.C.'s use of temporary foreign workers is the highest in the country. We know that in the case of HD Mining, the Liberal government was happy to assist the temporary foreign workers program, even when there were skilled workers who were available for those jobs. The B.C. Building Trades Council says that unemployment in trades hovers around 17 percent.

My question to the minister is: why is this government continuing to promote the use of temporary foreign workers when there are British Columbians who need these jobs?

Hon. S. Bond: This government has been very clear about its priority. We expect and anticipate that up until 2020 we will see a million job openings in British Columbia. And we've made it clear: we expect British Columbians to be the first priority and the first in line when it comes to the jobs that will be created in British Columbia.

Madame Speaker, I don't have to look much further than my own backyard. The last time the members opposite were in government, the unemployment rate hovered around 15 percent. Today in Prince George the unemployment rate is at an almost historical 3.8 percent.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

B. Routley: I rise to present a petition from residents of the Cowichan Valley who have petitioned. There are over 4,000 names on this petition. Their request is really quite basic: they're asking that government decline South Island Aggregates a permit to dump contaminated soil in Shawnigan Lake.

Tabling Documents

Hon. C. Oakes: I rise to table a report. I have the true honour to present the 2012-13 annual report for the B.C. Arts Council.

Petitions

L. Throness: It's my pleasure to present a petition today from 926 of my constituents who are residents or leaseholders of Cultus Lake. They're asking the government for legislative change to amend the Cultus Lake Park Act prior to the municipal elections of 2014 in order to reduce the number of parks board commissioners and to make those commissioners accountable to the people they serve.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, Committee of Supply is continuing in this chamber with the estimates of the Ministry of Health; in the Douglas Fir Room, the estimates of the Ministry of Justice; and in the Birch Room, the estimates of the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training.

[1430-1435]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:38 p.m.

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

The Chair: This is a continuation of the estimates of the Ministry of Health.

Hon. T. Lake: I'm happy to be back again with the staff from the Ministry of Health to answer questions from members of the House on the estimates of the Ministry of Health vote.

J. Darcy: We're going to be continuing today with seniors. Then after that, we'll move to rural and northern health. Then after that, we will have a variety of questions from individual MLAs. Then we'll move into a series of miscellaneous questions, just so you have some sense of what we will be covering the rest of the day.

K. Conroy: I'm going to get into some individual seniors' cases and issues that relate somewhat to the Ombudsperson's report. I want to talk about a situation that I know the minister is well aware of, and that's the death of the senior at the Overlander extended care unit, Jack Shippobotham — the death because he was housed with a brain-injured resident at the facility.

[1440]

Interior Health's executive director of residential services said in early July that an investigation was going to be conducted after Jack's unfortunate passing, and that it was going to be ongoing. I'm just wondering if the minister can provide an update on the situation.

Hon. T. Lake: This was indeed a very unfortunate incident. When it first occurred, I spoke with the family and Interior Health, and following the passing of Mr. Shippobotham, we again met with Interior Health and I
[ Page 1012 ]
spoke with the family as well.

My understanding from meeting with Interior Health is that it's not unusual to have a range of different patients in a long-term residential care home and a range of different ages. The situation is still being investigated and is, as we suggested to the family, in the patient care quality review process. That review process is still ongoing.

K. Conroy: The provincial numbers, the stats on this, are from 2009-2010. They show that there are 3,783 people with acquired brain injury in residential care in the province, 185 of those in Interior Health. I'm wondering if the ministry has more current statistics on that number.

Hon. T. Lake: Those are the latest figures that we do have. Over the last number of years a new system has been incorporated. There are several health authorities that are submitting data, so it will be some time before we have new figures to update the 2011 figures that the member has quoted.

K. Conroy: It's my understanding that about 15 percent of residential care clients are estimated to have severe to very severe aggressive characteristics, whether it's dementia or brain injury. The province currently doesn't have any separate incident-reporting category for resident-to-resident aggression. Is the ministry planning to change this?

[1445]

Hon. T. Lake: We are actually contemplating at this present time a regulatory change to separate out resident-to-resident incidents of aggression.

K. Conroy: Does the ministry, then, have statistics from health authorities on inter-resident aggression within residential care?

Hon. T. Lake: Health authorities do record that information and report it to the regulatory branches of the health authorities, but it is not collected provincially at this time.

K. Conroy: I'm thinking that when the minister says "at this time," it is going to be gathered provincially in the near future.

Hon. T. Lake: Yes, that is the regulatory change that we are considering at the moment.

K. Conroy: One of the recommendations from the Ombudsperson's report was to ensure that all residential care staff receive ongoing training in caring for people with dementia. In this case it seems that there's been insufficient training, especially for the staff protecting themselves from residents and also protecting residents from each other.

I'm wondering what the ministry is doing to ensure that this recommendation is carried out.

Hon. T. Lake: We had the opportunity to discuss this a little bit yesterday.

We are doing enhanced training for care providers. In March of 2013 the ministry signed a three-year licence for the PIECES program, which stands for physical, intellectual and emotional health; capabilities; environment; social self. This is a program that, I believe, came out of Ontario. It's to be used by the province as part of our enhancement of our dementia care training of residential care providers within British Columbia.

I understand that this is currently being piloted in some of our health authorities and will be rolled out throughout the province.

As the member rightly suggests, there is a need to increase training in terms of the complex needs of dementia patients. As our demographic continues to age, of course — the aging population — this becomes more necessary than ever. We are responding to that need through this very successful PIECES program.

K. Conroy: The next one I'm going to give you a bit of an overview on, because I'm not sure how familiar the minister is with this situation. It's about Summerland Seniors Village.

It's a situation that a family brought to me. Their mother, Mrs. Bonaldi, died in August 2012 in Summerland Seniors Village. This triggered an in-depth investigation.

As this investigation took place, several other care-related concerns were raised with the Interior Health Authority. Follow-up on these complaints occurred individually, but due to the serious nature of these concerns, the Interior Health Authority, the residential services, requested that additional inspection be done. That occurred in October of 2012, and they found 19 serious infractions at that time.

During even the follow-up of the investigation, further infractions were found. There was a long list of infractions, with 40 recommendations. A number of the recommendations were identified for quality-of-care improvements within the Summerland Seniors Village.

Staffing challenges emerged as having a contributing role to many of the quality-of-care issues identified — challenges like staff on care team working within limited scope; a limited skill mix on the care team; insufficient tools in place to support staff, their routines, job expectations, communication tools, reporting relationships; high incident of last-minute shift cancellation; low success rate in filling last-minute shifts; lack of systems in place for shift and staffing requirements. The list goes on.

[1450]

While this investigation was being carried out in
[ Page 1013 ]
November of that year, Mr. Bonaldi, who also lived in the facility on the assisted-living side, became sick. Under very tragic circumstances he was not checked on, even though he didn't arrive for his meals for three days. All three of his daughters were away at the time. When he was finally found, he was taken to hospital. He spent ten days in the hospital, ended up on life support, dialysis and, very tragically, he passed away.

I've been told that he was in assisted living and that it's not necessary for them to be checked on. But then the facility said there was a revised policy to include documentation of resident absences from meals. It wasn't followed up on. I know that my father-in-law lived in assisted living, and if he missed a meal, he was checked immediately. Someone always checked to make sure that he was okay.

The Interior Health Authority ended up bringing in two consultants and additional inspections for this facility, and now they're providing clinical oversight. It's my understanding that they are still providing clinical oversight to this facility.

I'm wondering if the ministry has any idea how much all of this oversight of this facility is costing taxpayers.

Hon. T. Lake: Through to the member, I certainly agree with her concern. I think any of us, if our elderly parents were in a facility, would expect to have them in a facility that was going to ensure their health and protection.

Interior Health has worked hard with this provider to address the concerns that were identified. In fact, the ongoing monitoring does continue until October of this coming year. However, the provider in this case — the company that does provide the assisted living — is paying for that oversight for the training of their clinical staff and the monitoring that Interior Health is providing.

K. Conroy: That's good to hear. Mr. Bonaldi's daughter had another suggestion. Her concern was that they continued to pay fairly high fees to this facility for their father's care while he was, in fact, under the acute care system. She said it seemed to her that there seemed to be some negligence on the part of the facility, that her father wasn't getting the care he should have been getting and ended up in acute care.

Her suggestion to me was that…. Why is it that these facilities, then, don't cover the cost of the acute care when they're liable — what she feels should have been liable — for the care that they didn't get? So she expressed concern about that. Not only did she pay for her father's care that he never got, and continued to pay while he was in acute care, taxpayers' dollars are now paying for his care in acute care.

She was, rightly so, really concerned about the cost of it. I mean, dialysis and life support. It was a horrible situation for them. They had just gone through the death of their mother, and it was by an accident. And then to have this happen was a tragic circumstance.

I don't think this is a question that the minister can answer — is it a policy that would be implemented someday in the future? — but it's something to think about. What kind of penalties would residential care facilities have to pay — or some kind of penalty — if they are not providing appropriate care, other than losing their licence?

I don't think any facility in the province has ever lost their licence. I think there's one maybe — close to the minister's constituency. I mean, that so rarely happens, even though the type of care being offered is obviously an issue.

[1455]

Hon. T. Lake: I just want to clarify to the member that the gentleman referred to by the member lived in independent living, not assisted living, and in fact this is a non-licensed part of the facility.

However, having said that, there are situations in which the ministry does recover costs. If there is a court case, for instance, that demonstrates that someone was injured, needed acute care and it was the fault of another entity, there are situations in which the ministry does seek to recoup those costs.

K. Conroy: We won't argue that in the House. My father-in-law was in an independent living situation. This isn't a situation that was argued out with the daughters. He was in a facility where there was long-term care and assisted living. They told him he was in independent care because he had his own cooking. Well, he didn't. There were no cooking facilities in the apartment that he was living in.

It's a debatable circumstance that the Interior Health Authority and others have continued to bring up. The daughters feel that it's wrong, and I just want to put that on the record.

One of the other policies that seniors struggle with in this province, and especially their families, is the first-available-bed policy. It has been an issue for years. Recently we had the situation where a…. Quite often when people can't get into a publicly funded bed, it's recommended that they try to find a privately funded bed, which they have to privately fund themselves.

Quite often families are in a position where they have no choice. The seniors need to go into some type of care — their father, spouse, loved one — so they must go into care. They're desperate for care. They have to pay for it. What happens now is that if you go into care and you're paying privately, you don't stay on the top of the list for a publicly funded bed.

We have the situation that's happened in the Fraser Health region where a mother — she was 95, living out in Mission — went into a privately funded bed because they couldn't get her into a publicly funded bed. She was there for 2½ years, and the family was told that she went
[ Page 1014 ]
to the bottom of the list. She didn't stay at the top of the list. The family was desperate, struggling to make ends meet to pay for that cost. Then they told the family that it was going to be a six-year waiting list. He said: "My mother is 95. I don't think she's going to make it."

There has to be a better way of doing the policy. It has to be changed somewhat so that if someone goes into privately paid care, they still stay at the top of the list to access a publicly funded bed. I'm wondering if the ministry is going to be looking at changing that policy in the very near future.

Hon. T. Lake: I think we share the sense that we need to provide appropriate and adequate spaces in long-term residential care. I do sometimes grow a little bit impatient in that with 5,000 new beds constructed over the last ten years, the situation is far better now than it ever was.

[1500]

My former colleague from Kamloops–South Thompson, Kevin Krueger, has in fact informed this House on many occasions when, prior to 2001, families would fill his office because there were just no available spaces. I'm looking forward in a couple of weeks to the opening of the Brocklehurst Gemstone manor in Kamloops, where 125 new publicly funded spaces will be incorporated, which virtually eliminates all the waiting list for long-term residential care in my city.

What the member is saying, though, is that if a family is really desperate to get their parent into a long-term residential care facility, there are no appropriately publicly funded beds and they put them into a private care facility, somehow they are moved down the priority list. I agree with the member that we should look at that to make sure that they are treated as all other new applicants, if you will, are treated. We certainly will take a look at that policy.

K. Conroy: I thank the minister for that answer. That's great. I'd just remind the minister that there were thousands of beds cut, also, while they built new beds.

Also, it was not 5,000 residential care beds; it was 5,000 assisted-living, supported-housing and first-available-bed. It's residential. And some of those beds that were cut were even reopened, like in the minister's very own constituency, I believe, where they shut down the Overlander and then reopened it again — which was great — when they recognized that they couldn't shut that facility down.

One of the other first-available-bed policies that is very difficult for people is if you're in acute care and get the first-available-bed opportunity, and you refuse it because it doesn't work for you and your family. If you refuse a second time, health authorities can become quite aggressive and start charging you $1,200 a day for staying in an acute care bed. It's highlighted in their policy.

One of the instances that has come to our attention is a 95-year-old woman from Trail, who's very frail and wants to live the rest of her life in the community. She has been told she has to move to New Denver. Her children are older, seniors themselves, who would have a tough time driving to New Denver, which is the first available bed. It's a 2½-to-three-hour drive from Trail to go and visit. When she's in Trail they can go and see her every day. It's difficult for them. But they don't have $1,200 a day to spend to keep this woman in acute care.

There are beds available, but for some reason she's not getting the bed. She has also been offered Grand Forks, which from Trail is an hour-and-a-half drive. And in the winter, I'm sure, if the minister has driven on our roads in the winter, they're pretty nasty. So it's a real hardship on the family.

I think, when the ministry is looking at the first-available-bed policy, that they need to look at the situation where seniors are charged in acute care beds — because no one can afford $1,200 a day — and to relook at the first-available-bed policy to try to bring people closer to home. Is that something that the ministry will consider?

Hon. T. Lake: The policy is actually the first-appropriate-bed policy. An acute care bed in an acute care facility is not an appropriate bed for a 95-year-old, frail senior. The risk of infection, the risk of falls…. These beds are not designed for that purpose. So it is in the interest of the patient to put them in the first appropriate bed.

We understand that this sometimes causes difficulty for the family, and we all feel for families that undergo that. However, those clinical decisions are made in the interest of the patient. In this case, going to a proper long-term residential care facility — where they have the appropriate level of care and the appropriate level of protection in terms of infection control, mobility and safety — is paramount.

[1505]

K. Conroy: I couldn't agree with the minister more. I don't know the numbers that I've been told — I should add them up — of the number of people who call, concerned about their loved one waiting in an acute care bed because they're waiting for an alternative level of care. We know that it's not appropriate care in an acute care facility. I reiterate what I raised yesterday around antipsychotic drugs that are used in acute care facilities. It's a real concern.

I think that the appropriate bed needs to take into consideration the geographical placement, because in rural B.C. the facilities are a long ways away. I think that there needs to be more consideration for families in keeping seniors closer to their homes so that they can get appropriate care, which includes being able to visit with their families and be part of their families.

When you're 95, you don't have that much longer to live. When you're placed in a residential care facility, the acute level of your needs and of what you're dealing with
[ Page 1015 ]
are quite high. I think that that needs to be a consideration, and I hope…. I would ask the ministry, could it be a consideration of their policy in the future?

Hon. T. Lake: I think, probably, the member has dealt with this, as I have in my constituency office. Where the first appropriate bed is available, the patient, the constituent, is moved into that bed but also put on a sequential list for when their preferred bed is available.

In this case, if the member's constituent was to go to Grand Forks in an appropriate bed, they would be put on a list for the first available bed in Trail, which would be closer. That is inconvenient. We understand that. But I didn't see in the member's platform a commitment to spend hundreds of millions of dollars building more long-term residential care beds.

We have had an aggressive program of providing those. Is there still more need? Absolutely. I agree with the member that we need to be mindful of the concerns of the family. They want to be close to their parents. The parents, the elderly patients that go into long-term residential care, want to stay in the communities where they've lived for a long time. We try to accommodate that as much as possible.

K. Conroy: No, in our platform there were considerable dollars to go towards medical home support that would keep seniors in their homes longer so that they wouldn't have to go into residential care. But I don't think we want to debate the platforms of either party in estimates.

I'm going to move on. Fair Haven is a non-profit society in Burnaby that has been providing excellent seniors care in Burnaby since 1949. They have 100 beds and a longstanding reputation not only as a good employer but also for providing excellent care to their residents.

They're struggling to make ends meet with the amount of funding that they're receiving from Fraser Health. This is largely due to employee costs, as they have long-serving staff who, because of their years of service, have higher rates of pay and longer vacation times. Right now they're incurring a deficit.

When Fair Haven raised this situation with Fraser Health, Fraser Health suggested that they lower their direct care hours being provided to residents. Fair Haven feels that with the decreasing acuity of the residents, this just isn't an option. They would be willing to adjust their staffing mix but not reduce the direct hour target.

The Ombudsperson's report was quite clear in that direct hours of service should not be cut in order to balance budgets. In fact, the report actually reiterated that the health authority should meet the ministry guidelines, which are actually 3.36 hours of daily care.

This is an obvious problem with funding of facilities in the province. There needs to be consistency but also flexibility to deal with the different circumstances that facilities find themselves in.

I think this begs the question…. There are actually two questions here. Is the minister going to deal with the funding inconsistencies of residential care facilities across the province? It's something that a number of organizations have raised with me, as well as residential care facilities. Some say that their fees are historical, so they get very low fees, and the newer facilities have higher fees, because they got a negotiated agreement later.

Is there going to be some kind of assessment or commitment to ensure that there's some consistency of fees for residential care facilities across the province?

[1510]

Hon. T. Lake: Again, thank you to the staff that work so hard to provide the information. Often we are not sure what questions will be asked, so they are prepared for just about anything and go to a lot of work to find the appropriate answers. As you can imagine with a $16½ billion budget, there's a lot of material that could be canvassed, so I really do appreciate their assistance.

There is a funding formula that is used throughout most health authorities, and in fact, Fraser Health uses this funding formula when they contract for long-term residential care spaces. It has three components.

One is a staffing component, one is for hospitality services, and those are consistent. The third one is property. A newer facility like the member was referring to may actually receive a higher fee because it's a brand-new building, and the property essentially is bigger and newer. The staffing and the hospital service components of their contract are consistent throughout the health authority.

In fact, Fraser Health, when the fees that were charged to residential care residents were adjusted — these are the publicly funded beds — we committed, as a government, that all of that increase would be reinvested back into long-term residential care services. Fraser Health actually used 98 percent of that investment due to the rate adjustment into hours of care.

Having said that, if a particular facility has a concern in terms of the level of funding that's available for the staffing component, there is a dispute mechanism available through Fraser Health which the facility should take advantage of.

K. Conroy: The facility has already taken advantage of it and, in frustration, has written a letter to the minister, which the minister probably should have on his desk somewhere — and also raised it with the opposition, so I'm bringing it again.

I think it begs the question: does the minister support facilities, in order to make ends meet, cutting their direct hours of care?

Hon. T. Lake: I have not seen the letter from this facility regarding the situation. When I do, I'd be happy to
[ Page 1016 ]
address it. We, as a ministry, have not been made aware of this. Until the letter, obviously, that the member says is coming…. We will address it with the facility and with Fraser Health.

K. Conroy: Further to that, the other part of my question: is the ministry going to have some kind of commitment to ensure health authorities actually abide by the guideline of 3.36 hours of care per resident?

[1515]

It's a guideline that the ministry has, and there are not very many health authorities enforcing that. There seems to be lower hours of care, and in fact, Fraser Health is telling this facility to go with lower hours of care in order to meet its budget.

Hon. T. Lake: The guideline is 3.36 hours of care per resident, but of course, that will vary depending on the day. Some residents one day will need more than others, and some residents on a daily basis will need more than others, and some facilities will need more than others, depending on the type of infrastructure that's available. Each situation is different. This is a guideline. But Fraser Health was on the low end of the guideline, and they recognize that.

As I mentioned earlier to the member, that's why they have chosen to use the money from the fee adjustment as a reinvestment. Some health authorities used some of that money for education; some used it for other improvements. Fraser Health used 98 percent of it to increase the number of care hours per resident, recognizing that they were at the low end. So they recognized that, the ministry recognizes that, and they are using that reinvestment of money to bring their average number of hours up.

K. Conroy: I think this is a discussion that I will, hopefully, have with the minister in days to come. It seems like Fraser Health might have done that, but both of the facilities that I've raised here in estimates, both Delta View Habilitation and Fair Haven, have been from Fraser Health, where they don't have the guidelines in place, or they're not using that guideline to provide their hours of care.

In the timing I have to move on. I just want to ask about the community care facility licensing review that's happening right now around licensing for residential care. I understand that it's happening, and I wanted to know where it's at, and what the timelines are on that for it to be completed.

[1520]

Hon. T. Lake: Last year we issued an RFP for a community care licensing operational review. There were no respondents to that RFP, so we have changed the terms of reference around the RFP. That work has just been completed, and the RFP will be issued in the very near future.

K. Conroy: So there are no timelines, as to date, on when this is hoped to be completed or an interim report done — nothing like that?

Hon. T. Lake: Presuming we get a successful bidder in terms of the RFP, we expect the actual review will take about six months.

K. Conroy: I just want to wrap. Because of timing, I'm not going to get near as much time as I think we should have for all the issues with seniors in this province. But I'm sure in the months to come we will have an opportunity to work with the minister and the staff more on seniors issues as they arise.

One of the things I did notice is that the ministry is working on a best practices of seniors care with the Michael Smith health foundation. They are developing an inventory of promising approaches in other jurisdictions.

I just thought I'd put a plug in the minister's ear. There is absolutely no mention of any of the European countries, if you take the United Kingdom and Ireland off the list. Some of the….

Interjection.

K. Conroy: Well, some of best health care in the world, studies have shown, is in the Scandinavian countries. I think the Health critic and myself, being direct descendants of Danes, would say that…. Actually, Denmark has one of the best systems, and the foundation should probably be looking at the northern European models when they look at some of the best opportunities. Having been there myself and seen it, I know there are some great opportunities and ideas that could be implemented into the British Columbia system and be a real benefit to seniors in this province.

With that, I'd like to thank the minister and the ministry for their time. I'll pass it back to the critic.

J. Darcy: We have one more question related to seniors care, and that's from the member for Saanich North and the Islands.

G. Holman: I have a question from a constituent, David Olsen, in Saanich North and the Islands, that was sent to the Premier and copied to the minister. It's regarding a drug used for treatment of Alzheimer's — a drug called Reminyl, I believe.

David's wife has been diagnosed with Alzheimer's in 2010. She's been on the drug since that time. It's a requirement to have an assessment by a physician every six months in order to qualify for the drug. Previously that assessment — there was no fee for it. Now, apparently, there is a fee being charged of roughly $70 per session. So that's twice per year, $70 per session.

There is also a concern that this policy is now being ap-
[ Page 1017 ]
plied more broadly and not just to David's wife. I guess that my question is: have you received the letter? Are you aware of the situation? In fact, can you verify that now there is a $70 fee per assessment? Is this policy being applied more broadly?

Hon. T. Lake: I can't speak to an individual case. I have not seen the letter myself. I'd be happy to meet with the member separately and go over this and provide a fulsome answer.

J. Darcy: We will now move to the critic for northern and rural health, the member for North Coast.

J. Rice: I assure you I have no questions on wheelchairs today. They're specifically around northern and rural health.

I have a few questions that I'm hoping I can just get a written response, because in the interest of time, we have to shorten our questions today, with other members that need to speak.

[1525]

In 2013 the 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."

My question to the minister is: what steps have been taken on the rural component of these commitments, and is any spending directed towards this commitment in the current budget?

Hon. T. Lake: I just wanted to clarify. The member asked for written responses. I'm not sure if she wanted me to respond orally to each of these questions or just provide a written response. Perhaps she could clarify that for me.

J. Rice: Sorry, I'm jumping the gun there. No, this was a question I was hoping for an oral response. I'll just highlight the questions specifically for written. I guess I was giving you a heads-up initially.

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you to the member.

Northern and rural health is certainly something that we have been focusing on over the last number of years and will continue to, as outlined in the platform commitment. Let me give some examples of some of the ways that we're supporting rural and northern health.

There's the rural recruitment incentive fund, which provides an incentive of up to $20,000 to fill a vacancy in a rural community. In fact, now there's $100,000 over three years for various pilot communities in rural British Columbia to entice physicians to locate in those communities. One of the communities in my constituency, Clearwater, is one of those. I know for them that is a great incentive for them to go out and recruit, hopefully, a young doctor that will want to stay in that wonderful community.

The rural recruitment contingency fund provides funds to help rural communities with recruiting expenses. Again, in Clearwater we have a very active member of the district council that heads a group that goes out and looks for potential physicians to locate in the community.

We also have a loan forgiveness program for nurses, nurse practitioners, medical residents, pharmacists and other medical professionals who choose to work in underserved areas. We will forgive any outstanding B.C. student loan at 33 1/3 percent per year, so after three years all of their loans are paid off.

Of course, the rural education funding is to support ongoing professional development. As the member knows, we are training physicians and nurses all around the province now. We think that is a great way to encourage medical professionals to stay in those underserviced areas where there was no training provided previously.

Just to mention, too, that new technology is one of the keys to meet the needs of rural and northern health by assisting with the remote delivery of some services — so telehealth, teleradiology, for instance. There are even systems now whereby a person can be in their own home and have a virtual visit with a physician or a specialist. That technology, I believe, is very promising to provide needed services in under-represented areas of the province.

J. Rice: The rural physicians for British Columbia incentive announced in March does not apply to many communities in Interior Health, apart from Princeton, yet they have faced significant shortages of physicians in emergency departments this year. Is there a plan to extend the incentive to more communities?

[1530]

Hon. T. Lake: We're still in the early stages of the pilot. We will be examining the results of the pilot. For instance, if a community like Clearwater is very successful, then obviously, it's a model that we know will work. We can transfer it to other communities. If there are unspent committed funds that become available, perhaps we can expand it to other communities.

The value of a pilot is seeing what kind of a response you get, and then, of course, we can utilize those results to consider moving it out to other areas of the province.

J. Rice: The following questions are questions I'd like back in writing. Can the minister provide a status update on the rural physicians for British Columbia incentive? What have the total costs of the program been to date? How many physicians have been recruited through it to the 17 participating communities?

The next one is: as of the 2011-12 fiscal year, the min-
[ Page 1018 ]
istry funded nine rural programs focused on recruiting and/or maintaining physicians in rural practices. Has this number changed? What is the total funding for these programs?

Lastly, can the minister commit to providing, in writing, an update on each of these programs, as well as information on the costs? I guess that pretty much summarizes what I was just saying.

My next question, to be responded to orally, would be in regards to the Vancouver Coastal Health and the United Church Health Services Society relationship. There has been an 11-year relationship with the UCHSS and Vancouver Coastal Health, and they're concluding that relationship. I'm curious if the minister can offer some explanation as to why this has happened.

Hon. T. Lake: As remarkable as the staff are at having and trying to anticipate the questions, we don't have that one right at hand. We will try to obtain that and, further in the session, provide the member with the answer, if she would like to proceed to the next question that she has.

J. Rice: I probably could have provided a little more background. This is the service provider for the coastal communities of the Bella Bella–Bella Coola area. People are concerned. There hasn't been much public consultation on that.

Moving along to a new topic, oil and gas in the north, an assessment of the effects of the oil and gas activity on human health in the northeast part of the province is currently underway. Apparently, task 1 of phase 2 of the examination was supposed to be finished by the spring of 2013. I'm just wondering if you have a status on that.

[1535]

Hon. T. Lake: The northeast oil and gas human health risk assessment is a collaboration among various ministries, but led by the Ministry of Health, to look at the human health risks that may be associated with oil and gas exploration and development in northeastern B.C. As we march towards development of the natural gas sector, particularly around the opportunity for liquefied natural gas, it's important to understand and address any human health concerns that may be associated with that activity.

Phase 1 was conducted by the Fraser Basin Council. That report was released by government June 6, 2012. Phase 2 is underway now. It's anticipated that phase 2 will be completed by April of 2014. It is broken down into four different tasks: information collection and issues identification; task 2 is human health risk assessment; task 3, review of regulatory and policy frameworks; and then task 4 is recommendations for monitoring and managing health impacts.

When those four tasks are complete, then we will anticipate releasing that report. As I mentioned, that would be in the spring of 2014.

J. Rice: While I recognize that this assessment was started before the government began promoting LNG in earnest, I was wondering if thoughts have been given to a similar assessment on how multiple LNG plants, as well as other expanded industrial activity, would affect the physical and the social health of the residents of northwest British Columbia.

Hon. T. Lake: The opportunity for liquefied natural gas certainly will impact the northwest and the member's own community. I was up there earlier this year, and there was, I can say, eager anticipation of the increased activity. In fact, I ran into people visiting from other parts of North America, undertaking work in anticipation of that activity. Every hotel room was full at the time with engineers supporting that work.

Certainly, one of the social benefits, if you like, of any activity like that is an increase in jobs and income. We know that is an important social determinant of health.

In terms of the direct question the member asked, there is no overall plan that is similar to the northeast oil and gas human health risk assessment, but not to say that those issues aren't important and aren't being looked at in other ways.

[1540]

There is a study of air quality that is being conducted, I believe, by the Ministry of Environment. And as each of these projects comes forward and goes through an environmental assessment, those impacts are studied, and in fact, a health impact study can be part of the environmental assessment. Northern Health and the Centre for Disease Control potentially would be involved in those health assessments.

J. Rice: I've had many people concerned about just the impacts of increasing industrial development in the northwest, particularly in Prince Rupert and Kitimat. I'm curious to know…. Do you think there might be a community outreach or similar outreach to that done in the northeast on the concerns of residents? Or would that fall under the Ministry of Environment, under environmental assessment?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, certainly through the environmental assessment process, there will be public consultation. From my experience in that field, there is considerable public interest. I'm sure the public consultation process will be a fulsome part of the assessment.

J. Rice: Again, similarly, looking at the pressures from industrial development in the northwest, I'm curious to know if there will be any study or analysis done on the pressures on the health system, specifically — on hospitals, on health care providers — because of the influx of people.

For example, in Prince Rupert they're looking at build-
[ Page 1019 ]
ing a camp for 3,000 people. I know, as a former city councillor, that the city is struggling to deal with current infrastructure issues as it is, let alone having an influx of that kind of population.

Hon. T. Lake: As the member rightly points out, there will be a lot of activity as pipelines are constructed, liquefied natural gas compression plants are constructed, all across the north. Although a lot of people will want to move to those communities to make them their permanent homes, there will be, obviously, temporary facilities or camps that will be provided for some of the construction activity.

In fact, Northern Health is in the stage of phase 1 of reviewing all of the planned camps in Northern Health and is now going on to phase 2, which is what health facilities will be required for those expected camps.

It's difficult to know exactly how many, of course. Whereas there may be a number of different projects, perhaps only some of those will move forward. So they can't predict for sure how many there will be. But within a certain level of certainty, they will look at the needs — what will be required with the presence of those camps.

At the same time, the Ministry of Health is undergoing a review of our existing industrial camps regulation, with a goal to update the regulation to bring it in line with current requirements under the Public Health Act and also processes that are ongoing in health authorities.

[1545]

We're working with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, the Ministries of Energy and Mines and Natural Gas, the Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, the operators of industrial camps, with industry itself and with WorkSafe B.C.

As part of that work, certainly, the health needs of the men and women who will be housed in those facilities can be looked at, at the same time.

J. Rice: I'm moving on to the First Nations Health Authority and some questions on First Nations health. When the B.C. tripartite framework agreement on First Nation health governance was signed in 2011, it included a two-year transition period to the full creation of a First Nations Health Authority. My question to the minister: is this proceeding according to schedule?

Hon. T. Lake: Referring to the B.C. tripartite framework agreement on First Nation health governance, the B.C. First Nations Health Council is one of a kind in Canada and a model, I think, across the country. The agreement was signed October 13, 2011, and we are on track. The First Nations health programs and services that are currently provided by, or were provided by, Health Canada are being transferred in phases to the First Nations Health Authority.

On July 2, just a couple of weeks ago, headquarters functions and funding were transferred, including funding for Medical Services Plan premiums. The remaining regional office programs, services and staff will be transferred on October 1 of this year.

J. Rice: Could you elaborate on how the province intends to work with the First Nations Health Authority on ensuring that collaboration and planning are cohesive?

Hon. T. Lake: The provincial government and the First Nations Health Authority have an agreement and have established first a joint project board between the Ministry of Health and the First Nations Health Authority. As well, every health authority has a partnership agreement with the First Nations Health Authority.

It's important to understand that the objective is not to create a parallel or duplicate system. But the First Nations Health Authority will work closely with the health authorities in all parts of the province and with the province itself to ensure that the needs of First Nations are met through the health services throughout British Columbia.

As I mentioned, this is something that is absolutely unique to British Columbia. We're very much looking forward to continuing to work with the First Nations Health Authority over the next number of years as the system develops in its entirety.

[1550]

J. Rice: The Together in Wellness report outlined a commitment to "develop new culturally appropriate addictions beds/units for aboriginal people." My question to the minister is: how many culturally appropriate addictions beds and units have been added and where?

Hon. T. Lake: The document the member refers to is a provincial approach. As I mentioned, with the tripartite agreement, the First Nations Health Authority is developing relationships with each of the health authorities throughout the province.

The First Nations Health Authority will work with each of the health authorities to design and implement the creation of culturally sensitive facilities for substance use and mental health use for aboriginal people.

J. Rice: Are you able to provide any sort of timeline or expected completion times?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, B.C. First Nations and Aboriginal Peoples Mental Wellness and Substance Use is a ten-year plan. With the most recent developments with the tripartite agreement, we are at early stages, obviously. This is something that we will be working with the First Nations Health Authority and health authorities throughout the province to ensure that they are following that ten-year plan. At this time we are, again, at the early planning
[ Page 1020 ]
stages.

J. Rice: It's been a long, ongoing issue in the central coast around delivering babies within the community and not having to leave for extended periods of time.

One of the recommendations in a report called A Path Forward is to "increase available services and supports for First Nations and aboriginal prenatal, perinatal and postnatal women and their families." Yet I know that planned births have been unavailable in Bella Coola Hospital for the last five years. This forces people from the local and surrounding communities to leave their families for the entire month prior to their pregnancy due date.

Can the minister outline where these improvements in maternity care are being made? Will these improvements include returning maternity services to Bella Coola and other rural and remote communities that have lost these services in the last ten years?

Hon. T. Lake: A maternal, child and family health strategic approach has been developed by the Tripartite Maternal and Child Health Strategy Area to provide a provincewide guidance to support the development of maternal and child health strategies within the region, so recognizing that there is a need, particularly among aboriginal communities, to supply those opportunities in their communities. This is what the tripartite maternal and child health strategy is all about.

[1555]

There is an aboriginal doula initiative which is well underway, and that is with the goal of bringing birth closer to home. It's supporting 15 First Nation and aboriginal doulas to full certification. These particular ladies have supported 35 First Nation and aboriginal women in birthing their children.

We hope to be able to expand that initiative into more areas. I'm not sure at the moment, hon. Member, if that includes the north coast, but this is the type of activity that assists, particularly aboriginal communities, in providing those maternal services closer to their communities.

J. Rice: That's exciting to hear. I'm wondering if it would be possible to actually get in writing what communities are being served — if the north and central coast are being served by this program.

Lastly, on the First Nations Health Authority, First Nations health, one of the overarching principles outlined in the same document, A Path Forward, is to find ways to address travel and funding blocks that make it hard for First Nation and aboriginal people to access and reach mental wellness and substance-use programs and services.

Can the minister provide an update on what progress has been made on addressing this barrier to treatment for First Nations and aboriginal people, especially those in rural and remote communities?

Hon. T. Lake: Some of the federal money, previously from Health Canada which is being transferred into the First Nations Health Authority, was for transportation assistance. We have a provincial program as well. So working with the First Nations Health Authority, we'll try to integrate those and provide more opportunities for aboriginal communities to access that assistance to transportation.

J. Rice: It's well known in the north that we that live in the north have a shorter life expectancy than the rest of the province. "Residents of northern British Columbia have significantly poorer health than residents of the province as a whole. This burden…is broadly distributed throughout the population and is not, as is commonly supposed, only associated with poorer health among aboriginal people." This is from the Northern Health service plan.

If you go back over a few service plans, to about 2009 at least, that statement is repeated. My question is: has the ministry undertaken an investigation into the root of this disparity?

[1600]

Hon. T. Lake: There are a number of factors that may contribute to the statistics that the member is quoting. In the northern parts of British Columbia we know that there is a higher rate of smoking, for instance, which has an impact on health outcomes.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

We know that there are more vehicles, in terms of highway miles travelled, because of the distances, and the potential risks involved in highway travel. Higher rates of industrial activity may lead to injury. There are higher rates of complex and chronic diseases like type 2 diabetes.

Northern Health has done a number of different things. First of all, the divisions of family practice in Northern Health are looking at particular ways of addressing some of those demographics that are characteristic of the population in the north and looking at ways of dealing with those.

Northern Health is also doing a men's health strategy to try to reach out to the male population in the north to address some of the concerns that have been outlined by the member.

J. Rice: Jumping over to the northern medical program. It's well documented that we have a shortage of doctors and health providers in the north compared to the rest of the province. The northern medical program was created at UNBC, the University of Northern British Columbia, to train doctors in the north for the north.
[ Page 1021 ]

My question to the minister is: could he provide the number of northern-trained doctors from this program that are currently practising in the northern part of the province? This could be a question that he gets back to me in writing, so I could move on to another question.

The 2013 Liberal platform committed to 500 additional addiction spaces provincially. My question is: how many of these planned spaces are for northern residents, and how many of these spaces are planned for west of Prince George?

Hon. T. Lake: This was a commitment made in the election campaign, one that the government certainly is committed to. But because it is a new commitment, there will need to be some planning, working with health authorities. Obviously, the 500 additional spaces will go where the need is. We'll have to do a careful analysis with the health authorities to make sure that those new spaces are in the appropriate locations where the need is greatest.

J. Rice: Just so I could clarify. The answer is that we don't really know for the north. Could I be safe to say that?

Hon. T. Lake: What I would say is that we are in the early stages. We haven't planned down to that level, so I cannot provide that specific answer.

J. Rice: I just have a couple more, and I think some people are pretty much ready to go up.

As part of this process, I was reaching out to people in the north in my communities, some experts and users of the health care system. A community nurse had this to say in regards to the failure to ensure low-income people can afford life-saving medication.

In an e-mail she said: "I know in my job I meet people all the time that do not take medications or do not take them as often as they should because of cost. What does this mean? They don't take their high-blood-pressure pills, and then they have a stroke. They take less insulin because it's expensive, but then they lose a foot. The government saves money in the short term, but then pays big when the person has serious acute complications."

As the minister is no doubt aware, the northwest has persistently high levels of poverty compared to the rest of the province. Many people are unemployed or underemployed. Seasonal and intermittent work is also common, and there are numerous issues with the structure of PharmaCare.

My question to the minister would be: has had he done a cost-benefit analysis in terms of increasing coverage for these critically important medications versus the consequences of people being unable to afford to take them consistently?

Hon. T. Lake: PharmaCare is one of the fastest-growing areas of our health care budget, as the member is probably aware from looking at the budget in preparation for estimates. Since 2001 that budget has increased by 81 percent from $655 million now to $1.2 billion.

[1605]

We, of course, want to make sure that we have a comprehensive program, and it is one of the most comprehensive programs in the country. Coverage is available to every British Columbian. Through the Fair PharmaCare program, every person living in British Columbia is eligible for assistance with prescription costs. Of course, it depends on their level of income. It's a progressive type of system. But I would point out that, in fact, 10 percent of patients registered with PharmaCare were eligible for 100 percent coverage. That's about 260,000 people throughout British Columbia.

Since 2001 the amount of PharmaCare spent on individuals in the low-income area has increased by 134 percent. So we certainly understand that British Columbians facing financial challenges should be assisted. That is why MSP premiums are provided either at no cost or at a reduced cost and why PharmaCare eligibility and, in fact, coverage up to 100 percent is available for low-income British Columbians.

J. Rice: Thank you for your response.

In regards to PharmaCare coverage, we know that PharmaCare uses income tax data from two years past to calculate the Fair PharmaCare coverage. But in the north, many of us work seasonally and intermittently and there is a little bit more of an inconsistency to the work. My question would be: is there any consideration of revising how that is looked at for the different types of workers that we have in the province?

Hon. T. Lake: If I can beg the member's indulgence to provide an answer to one of her earlier questions while we get the appropriate person to deal with the PharmaCare question….

That was about Vancouver Coastal Health and the United Church Health Services Society relationship. Those responsibilities are being transitioned from the United Church to Vancouver Coastal in the central coast region. That transition begins in July and will go until March of 2014. So the transition is beginning this month, starting with high-level meetings between the leadership of the two organizations and, as I say, will take place over the following six to nine months, to be completed by March 31.

The key objectives are to improve health status and reduce health inequities of the central coast and to provide opportunities and efficiencies for improved quality of care; to align governance with the First Nations Health Authority, of which we've been speaking, as well as with First Nations as per the Vancouver Coastal Health partnership accord that we referred to earlier; also to simplify
[ Page 1022 ]
the governance model, which will lead to the ability to access Health Shared Services B.C. and some of the efficiencies and economies of scale that are available there; and to improve community understanding of the available health services and enhanced relationships with partners.

There is a transition, and I can assure the member that residents of the central coast will still receive the same quality health care and services, and Vancouver Coastal, together with United Church, will ensure that the needs of community are being met.

J. Rice: Thank you for that. I hope during the transition that the community gets a little bit of a heads-up or gets some notice. I know that the word is out that this is happening, and some people are pretty concerned that there wasn't public consultation.

My last question before I pass it back over to our Health critic is in regards to AIDS and HIV in the north.

For the past three years Prince George has been a test community for the STOP HIV/AIDS program. It appears the government thought the program was very worthwhile because it has since expanded across the province. Yet, despite the fact that HIV/AIDS continues to rise in the north, this government is slashing Northern Health's funding for this program in half by 2015.

[1610]

My question to the minister is: can the minister explain the decision to cut funding for the STOP HIV/AIDS program in Prince George?

Hon. T. Lake: I'll answer this question first, and then I'll go back to the member's question about PharmaCare and the ability to look for relief for members in her community.

The STOP program to seek and treat HIV/AIDS has been a tremendously successful program. I had the opportunity to meet with Dr. Julio Montaner recently and discuss the program. Certainly, with Dr. Perry Kendall, we know also the success of that program. The two pilots in Vancouver and in Prince George have been very successful. Almost $20 million went into those programs.

Of course, when you first set up a pilot program, you need to invest in the systems that need to be put in place. You need to invest in evaluations and ensure that the model is working correctly. Now, that STOP program is being rolled out throughout the province, in new areas and in existing areas, because the model has proven the costs to provide those services is lower. We feel confident that with that same funding, we can provide that service in various areas of the province.

I just wanted to address the question about PharmaCare the member asked. Because income varies from one year to the next with seasonal employment, the assessment of income from two years previously to judge whether or not they were eligible for various levels of PharmaCare coverage might be sort of out of date compared to the last year of employment.

I'm told that you can apply for a reassessment. So in some cases if you can show that you didn't earn as much money as you thought you might and you had overpaid for PharmaCare, in fact that will be assessed, and a refund then based on that income will be issued to the person who applies.

J. Rice: That concludes my questions for today, but I just want to take the opportunity to thank the minister for being so cooperative. I appreciate the opportunity, and I look forward to furthering and bettering health outcomes for northern and rural British Columbians.

Thank you, and I'll pass it off to our Health critic.

J. Darcy: I believe the member for Saanich North and the Islands wanted to just do a quick follow-up on an earlier question.

G. Holman: I just wanted to pursue the question regarding the Alzheimer's drug. I do understand and appreciate the minister's reluctance to talk about an individual case. I also appreciate your offer to meet on that individually if it can't be sorted out with the particular constituent.

I did ask and want to try and clarify, if I can, the policy regarding coverage for assessments of these drugs. The minister didn't really answer that question previously. My understanding is that the drug is being covered under the Alzheimer's drug therapy initiative, ADTI. It's a class of inhibitors, including Reminyl. It's authorized through the PharmaCare special authority process. It covers a lot of patients. It's more than just this particular constituent.

My question is whether it is now a policy to charge a fee for these twice-a-year assessments that are required in order to get coverage for the drugs. Is this a policy now that applies to all patients in similar circumstances?

[1615]

Hon. T. Lake: I'm appreciative of having our staff member here who deals with PharmaCare. I am informed that that is not a policy and that fee should not be charged. If in fact the member's constituent was charged, we will ensure that he is reimbursed, and we will notify anyone that has been charged inappropriately of that.

G. Holman: Thanks to the minister for that response.

M. Mungall: I want to bring the minister's attention to some recruitment issues in the Kootenays for physicians. Specifically, we're having some trouble with emergency room and health centre closures. Kaslo alone, this month — six times it has had to close the ER there.

We've also seen situations in Elkford and in Sparwood where they've had to have some closures. When talking to the IHA, they say that this is about physician recruit-
[ Page 1023 ]
ment, ultimately — that they are really struggling to recruit physicians into rural communities throughout the IH area but, most notably, for my constituents in the Kootenays.

I thought it was quite interesting, though, in looking at other health authorities. In Northern Health they don't have this recruitment problem to the extent that the IH has. In fact, they have cited success in many of their recruitment efforts.

I'm wondering if the ministry has done any analysis on why IH in particular is having this recruitment difficulty. Therefore, of course, this recruitment difficulty is causing closures to the Kaslo ER and other health centres, as well as just having overall orphaned patients throughout the region, particularly in Creston. Nelson, for the first time in many years, is starting to face this as well.

Hon. T. Lake: Through to the member, this is a problem not just in her communities of her constituency but in many others. In fact, it's a problem around the western world. Anyone who has seen the 1994 movie Doc Hollywood knows the rural community recruiting challenges with doctors. The answer there was to get the doctor to fall in love with someone in the community, and then he stayed.

In fact, that's kind of what we try to do in many instances in British Columbia. We train doctors and we train nurses in areas outside of the major urban centres of Vancouver and Victoria in the hopes that they will fall in love with the community and perhaps with a potential spouse and then take up their residence there. But that's obviously not the only thing we do.

It is a concern in my constituencies — probably the number one concern of constituents who come through my office. So it's a challenge for all of us to meet the needs of rural British Columbia when it comes to not just health care professionals but actually all professionals. The government and the B.C. Medical Association, through the Joint Standing Committee on Rural Issues, recognize that, and particularly in emergency departments to which the member is referring.

[1620]

They have created a program that provides up to $200,000 each year to support emergency department plans, developed by rural physicians in consultation with health authorities, that assist them in providing scheduled, reliable public access to emergency services in rural hospitals.

That is in addition to other rural incentives we had. I believe we talked earlier — perhaps the member wasn't in the House at the time — about the incentives to pay off student loans, to provide extra locum fees for physicians to locate in rural communities, as well as a pilot program in several communities to entice physicians into those areas.

In terms of Interior Health versus Northern Health, Interior Health, of course, has a huge area. It covers the size of most European countries. There are, I believe, 23 hospitals in Interior Health. Northern Health has a much smaller population and fewer health care facilities. So they don't have the same challenges in terms of the quantity of physicians that are required. That may speak to some of the differences. There may be others.

I, certainly, would like to work with Interior Health — well, we already do — as an MLA from that region. I've worked with the divisions of family practice, worked with Interior Health. In fact, I had a meeting with their vice-president for community services last week in my constituency office about this issue.

We continue to do what we can to try and encourage physicians and other health care professionals to locate in rural communities and certainly understand that it is a challenge that all jurisdictions in the western world are facing.

M. Mungall: I just want to bring the minister's attention, though, to what was outlined in the throne speech. The throne speech this February, prior to the election, did say that the government would commit to "outline improvements for patients in rural and urban areas" — notably, for my area, the rural component of that.

Then, in the ministry service plan, though, we only see "rural" mentioned once. That's where it promises to make "investments in information technology and information management systems to improve service quality and efficiency and increase access to services, particularly" — and this is where the word "rural" appears — "in rural areas." Not specifically targeting the physician recruitment issue.

The minister did list off some of the things that the ministry is doing — working with the health authorities to increase recruitment efforts and to facilitate physicians moving to rural communities. But clearly, that's not enough.

There's something going on here that we need to address, and we can't do it with any tips from Doc Hollywood, I don't think. I think we have to be taking a little bit more of a concerted effort in doing some serious analysis around that.

So that's where my question is really coming from. Is the ministry committed to doing some analysis to have a better understanding of what this issue is, what's at the root of it, and how we solve it? Our communities deserve no less.

Hon. T. Lake: I wasn't being flippant. I thought I was illustrating the fact that this is a challenge all over the western world. The member knows that there is a huge urbanization of the population. It is difficult to attract all kinds of professionals to rural areas. For the member to suggest that we haven't acted upon this is simply false.

Let me go through some of the statistics for the mem-
[ Page 1024 ]
ber. First of all, it was this government that doubled the number of physician-training spaces in the province, including training physicians in Kelowna and in Prince George. In fact, they do part of their training in other communities in the interior of the province.

Just so the member is aware, between 2003-2004 and 2011-12 the number of doctors practising in rural areas has increased by 26 percent. According to the last available statistics from the Society of Rural Physicians of Canada, the Canadian average was 1,153 rural residents for each rural general practitioner, whereas in British Columbia it is far lower. It is 874 rural residents per general practitioner.

We know that we are doing better than most jurisdictions that face this challenge. However, we are working hard with the BCMA, with the divisions of family practice, with the health authorities and with communities to try and attract and retain doctors in all areas of this province.

[1625]

B. Routley: I appreciate the comments of the minister about the difficulties in dealing with rural communities and trying to attract doctors. I, too, rise to ask a question about that issue.

We could never imagine, actually, in the Cowichan Valley — a place like the Lake Cowichan region, with its beautiful 26-mile-long lake and all of the amenities that are there, ice arenas, etc. — that we would have a problem with doctors. But we went from three doctors down to two. The two remaining doctors found that the costs and the burden were too high, and now they're moving on as well. By the end of this month, I'm told, we'll be down to zero doctors in the Lake Cowichan region.

Lake Cowichan has areas I and F. It includes the Youbou community, Mesachie Lake, Honeymoon Bay and Caycuse. There are roughly 6,000 residents in the year, but that number rises to as many as 20,000 people when the tourist season is on, like right now.

You can imagine that without a clinic nearby where people can deal with their cuts and scrapes and burns, etc., it's going to put more strain on the medical system in Duncan. It's going to mean the emergency room being used more, more trips to the hospital in an ambulance for cuts and burns and that kind of thing — or even health issues where there's a concern, where in the past they could go to their doctor. Now, I'm concerned that it's going to cost the system even more money.

One of the solutions I know that they're looking at…. And I'm appreciative that VIHA is looking at some kind of model, along with the community. They're talking about a community clinic. But in order to attract a doctor, the community has asked me loudly and clearly: would I at least step forward and ask the minister if they could get on the same list that other remote regions are on, for this $100,000. It's a starting point, if you like, for them to have some funding to try and work together as a committee, to do whatever they can to try and attract a doctor to the region.

I would add that I think it would be very cost-effective, and money well spent, to do that kind of thing, to look at this as a problem-solving exercise. You don't want to end up costing the region's health care system more by not acting in a prudent and practical way.

There are some good things happening, but again, my question to the minister comes down to: can the Lake Cowichan region get access to the same $100,000 for doctor recruitment as other communities? And I guess the part (b) to that would be: is there any other program that may be available that would help the region find a doctor?

Hon. T. Lake: We discussed this earlier, but I don't think the member was in the chamber when we did. The pilot program of $100,000 over three years to entice physicians to the underserviced areas throughout the province is in the pilot stage. I mentioned that the community of Clearwater in my community is one of those pilot communities.

I share the same view of the member that in these wonderful communities — in the case of Clearwater, right next to Wells Gray Park; it's just a magnificent community, a caring community, and has relative proximity to larger centres — it's hard to understand why professionals don't want to locate in some of these communities. But that is the nature of modern professional life, I suppose.

What we can try to do, as much as possible, is make it more attractive. In terms of that particular program, once the pilot has been evaluated, it will be assessed and perhaps able to be expanded into different areas. Certainly, we'll take note of the member's request for his community to be included, should there be an expansion of that program.

[1630]

But there are also other things that we can do, which the member certainly can make his community aware of. There is a recruitment contingency fund, which I mentioned earlier. That's to assist communities, health authorities and physician groups — to use for advertising, to interview, for relocation expenses, for physicians that they may want to attract into the community.

The model that the member mentions about health care centres is a good model. I know VIHA is working on this. In fact, we just opened the Oceanside Health Centre. It's a multidisciplinary facility that provides almost everything the community needs except, of course, the most emergent and acute care. That then is provided at the regional hospital.

I think that's the model we need to move to, not to provide a Cadillac in every community but to provide 90 percent of what the community needs, knowing that 10 percent — the really high acuity, the emergent cases — then would go to the other centres. If you provide those
[ Page 1025 ]
facilities in communities, I think that's how you attract professionals as well.

There are a lot of different components of this that I think will make it more attractive for health care professionals to locate in those communities. We continue to work hard towards those. We'd be happy to work with the member and his community to obtain more health care professionals in the Lake Cowichan area.

B. Routley: Again, I appreciate that you'd be happy to work with us. I would invite the minister to come up to the community and meet with a number of groups there.

Of great concern, which you should be aware of and made aware of, are the large seniors centres that are there. Part of the reason those seniors centres are there is because they could walk to the doctors clinic. A lot of those seniors don't have a car. Again, it comes back to the cost to the system to not deal with what is really a crisis. It's here, and it's now, and it's at the end of this month.

While I appreciate the minister's words in terms of looking at a pilot project and help in the future, I would add that we see this as an almost-emergent issue. It will mean more ambulances going to town. I just wanted the minister to be aware of that.

Again, you're invited to come up. We appreciate you listening to our concerns. If there are any more ideas you have to help save the system money, we'd be happy to hear from you about those ideas.

C. Trevena: I actually have five questions. Time is very tight, so I'm going to lay out all five questions to the minister. A couple are constituent ones, so maybe we'll be able to talk off the record for that — but just to get them on the record. The minister can respond as needed.

On the issue of what my colleague has been talking about, the issue of physician recruitment, it's also an issue in my area, in Port Hardy. Obviously, we're getting the $100,000 for physician recruitment.

I wrote to the minister's predecessor, Margaret MacDiarmid, about actually implementing the alternative payments program policy framework, which would allow both fee-per-patient and salary in the same community. There are some communities where some doctors want to be fee-per-patient, and others want to be on salary —whether there is any problem with having that mixed.

According to the policy framework, it actually indicates there wouldn't be. It uses an example: "A health authority with a medium-volume ER may choose an APP service agreement to fund ER physicians during lower-intensity night shifts and allow FFS, fee-for-service, payment during daytime, higher-volume hours." Clearly, it's envisaged that we could have both together.

When I wrote to the minister's predecessor looking at that as an alternative for some of my communities that are looking for recruitment where salary would be best used, or those areas where there are two doctors and one would like to be on one system and the other on the other, the minister's predecessor was not particularly enthusiastic about it. I would like to see whether we can start implementing that in different communities as a way of engaging more physicians.

My second question is…. As the minister is well aware, we are getting two new hospitals in the north Island, one in the Comox Valley and one in Campbell River. I'm very excited about this. It's going to be good to have them.

[1635]

There is an issue in the Campbell River Hospital of the number of beds, accessibility to beds. All the medical staff — physicians and nurses and workers there — have cited that we need ten more beds. That's all, ten more beds.

I have talked to the project manager about this, and the project manager has told me in conversation that if we acted now it wouldn't put things out of kilter to include those ten more beds in the planning for the new build. If we have to wait and then add it on, it's going to mean knocking down walls and extending. So the opportunity for planning into the future and getting those ten extra beds in would really be very significant. I mean, the hospital at the moment is over-census It really is crowded, and so planning for the future, I think those ten beds really are essential.

Likewise on the new hospital, we have had in Campbell River a couple of high-profile teen suicides. One young woman, very sadly, killed herself at Ledger House. The coroner's report into that suicide did say that we do need two teen, adolescent mental health beds in our hospital. The coroner's report says the north Island hospital — either St. Joseph's or the north Island hospital.

At the moment psychiatric services are going to be focused in the new Comox Valley hospital, but there is an issue of basic travel time, distance for families. If we could get those two beds in the Campbell River Hospital — I mean, dedicated for adolescents — it would go a long way to relieving stress for the families whose daughters both have committed suicide, and for others in the community.

My last two questions. As I say to the minister, it's a lot to get on the record. We can talk about them after estimates. I quite understand that. But limited time.

Hospice funding — I know the government has committed to increase funding to hospice. Campbell River Hospice is volunteer-run — largely, very low funding on the hospice. If we could see a better proportion of the money going into hospice, we would eventually like to build our own hospice. At the moment, we are desperately short of money there.

My final one. I have two constituents…. I will actually write a note to the minister about this because I know he can't deal with individual cases, particularly in the estimates process.

One has now been waiting a year for a hip replacement and has been told it's going to be at least until the end of
[ Page 1026 ]
September. So he will have been waiting 15 months for a hip replacement and is very concerned about that.

The other — which again, I will write to the minister about separately but wanted to get it on the record — is the concern of those patients who have medical appointments in Vancouver and, for whatever reason, they are cancelled. These people who are living in rural communities have to get to Vancouver, have to leave their communities, drive down to Nanaimo, get on the ferry, get to Vancouver, pay for accommodation, to get to the hospital to find that their appointment has been cancelled.

If there is any way we can get better planning so that people leaving their homes in rural communities, going down, don't have to face either the physical or the mental stress of preparing for an operation and getting down to Vancouver and finding that their appointment has been cancelled.

Those are my issues, Minister. I would like if you can respond just briefly on a couple of those. Otherwise, we can talk off the record. I'd be very happy to continue that way.

Hon. T. Lake: I appreciate the member's indulgence in getting back to her on some of these questions. I'd be happy to meet with her personally on them.

[1640]

First of all, in terms of the Campbell River Hospital, I think it's safe to say that every community would like to see a bigger hospital than the one that's planned. My understanding is that VIHA takes the view that more community and primary care is necessary, rather than acute care.

Of course, when we talk about capital costs, that's one thing, but of course, operating costs…. Acute care beds are the highest-cost beds. When we're looking at the sustainability of the health care system, using primary care rather than acute care is more sustainable. We certainly will continue to have those discussions.

In terms of the ultimate payment plan — in other words, a salary versus fee-for-service for a physician — the policy is not to allow a mix of the two for a physician. In other words, not an alternative plan for part of the time and then a fee-for-service another part of the time. That is to prevent the possibility of potential double-billing for services.

Again, I'm happy to discuss that with the member off line at a later date.

I wonder, hon. Chair, as we are halfway through this 4½ hour marathon, if we might take a short recess.

The Chair: We'll recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:41 p.m. to 4:49 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister and staff for being here today. We don't have much time, so I'm going to keep to one issue. I'll send the rest in written form, if that's all right.

[1650]

The minister already segued this. He cited the Oceanside Health Centre to the member for Cowichan Valley in an earlier response. He did suggest that it's providing everything that the community needs, and I need to correct that.

I've been involved with the community; it's part of my catchment area. Three of the key highlighted priorities for the needs of the area — the oldest demographic in Canada — were palliative care spaces, emergency services and overnight beds to keep people there in the community should they need those services. Of course, 24-7 was another highlighted initiative that was by the community, for the community, for this.

It is not providing everything that is needed. I think it's a big problem. The minister said it again. He said it provides everything the community needs. The minister knows it doesn't provide any of the….

Interjection.

S. Fraser: You can check the Hansard, Minister. It's being perpetuated continually. The opening statement from VIHA on this was June 20. The headline was: "Oceanside Health Centre Opens for Health Services to Public" — followed by a grand opening attended by the minister — He suggested: "The opening of this facility supports our families-first agenda by providing" — all present tense — "coordinated, easily accessible health care for patients and their families." This is a problem.

Why was there a grand opening when the health authority has not been able to convince any doctors to take part in this facility so far?

Hon. T. Lake: When I was referring to the Oceanside Health Centre and that concept of providing multidisciplinary primary care community services, I said that it was unreasonable to expect to provide a full-service hospital in every community. For many communities, if they could get 90 percent of their everyday health needs at a regional centre and then, of course, the emergent or acute care was at the regional centre, that would be an approach that I think would make a lot of British Columbians happy.

The Oceanside Health Centre is a very integrated facility. It had its opening June 24, and it will be phased in terms of the services that it provides, starting with environmental health, medical imaging, outpatient laboratory services. That has started. Urgent care will open in September, as well as medical daycare, and primary care later in September.

I understand that the Vancouver Island Health
[ Page 1027 ]
Authority has been working closely with the Oceanside division of family practice. They haven't come to an agreement at this particular time in terms of servicing the Oceanside Health Centre, but they are working and talking about different models of payment, and I'm confident that the Vancouver Island Health Authority and the division of family practice will come up with a solution.

S. Fraser: Build it, and they will come. This is distressing. You've built a $17 million building that's providing — essentially will provide, if you can get any doctors in it — really no new services for the region, at $17 million.

[1655]

You do a grand opening for this that was interpreted…. I'll suggest here. July 8, the Vancouver Island Health Authority — this is the council member….

Interjection.

The Chair: Member, take a seat.

Let the member ask a question, and the minister can answer later.

Member, continue.

S. Fraser: The council meeting in Port Alberni received the same notice on the 20th. It says: "News release dated…." This is in the minutes of the council meeting. This is how the press release was interpreted by a nearby city council. "News release dated June 20, 2013, advising that the new Oceanside Health Centre in Parksville is now open to provide patients with complete urgent, primary and community-based health care services."

A question to the minister: how many potential patients, how many people, have shown up at the Oceanside Health Centre since the announcement of the grand opening for health services to the public from VIHA and the minister's statements? How many people went there misinformed, thinking they could get a doctor's assistance?

Hon. T. Lake: To the member, who is unbelievably negative about an amazing facility in one of his communities, as I mentioned, there is medical imaging that has started. Outpatient laboratory services to start. Urgent care will start in September, and medical daycare and primary care later in September.

I refuse to be lectured to by a member of the opposition that refused to build anything in this province in health care facilities. Where $8 billion of health care facilities built in this province over the last 12 years….

Interjections.

The Chair: Members.

Hon. T. Lake: I will not be lectured to by someone from a party that refused to build anything when we are opening a $17 million facility in the community.

I can tell you that at that grand opening there were a lot of people there that were excited, that toured the facility, that were very grateful that this government has provided that facility in his community.

S. Fraser: Again, the minister is citing things like lab work and medical imaging. There's always been lab work. This is LifeLabs moving into the facility. VIHA, the minister paid over $2 million to acquire the rights to the medical imaging that was available two kilometres as the crow flies already. No new services, to the minister, just for his edification. It's not lecturing. These are facts. The facts are….

Can the minister confirm that over 40 people, in the first week of this grand announcement of a new health centre, showed up there for medical service? Some of them could have faced serious medical consequences because they went there, being misguided that this was providing, again, health services to the public.

Hon. T. Lake: To the member, for his edification, the backgrounder supplied with the news release was very clear about the phased approach of providing health care services. Integrated community primary care teams, June 24. Specialty care, June 24. Environmental health, June 24. Medical imaging, June 24. Outpatient lab services, June 24. Urgent care, September 16. Medical daycare, September 16. Primary care, September 30.

If the member didn't take the time to read the backgrounder, then I can certainly provide it directly to him.

S. Fraser: That's a very flippant answer. Maybe you should tell that to the mayor and council in Port Alberni. They certainly read it differently. At least 40 people in the first week attended this. VIHA had to send out notices trying to stop people from showing up and trying to get medical services, including people with chest pains. That potentially could have been very, very dangerous for them to show up at this.

A lot of people read the headlines. Why do a grand opening saying that you're open for health services to the public three months before you're suggesting you might be able to get a doctor in the house? Here's another quote. "The urgent care ward will open in September providing year-round emergency services and procedures."

[1700]

Will the minister confirm that they're getting emergency services and docs in that? That would be a piece of good information.

Hon. T. Lake: The information that was provided by Vancouver Island Health Authority as part of this announcement included that the Oceanside Health Centre will provide "urgent-care services 15 hours per day, from
[ Page 1028 ]
7:30 to 10:30 p.m." — starting at the date that was announced earlier in the backgrounder — "seven days a week, 365 days per year. Urgent care provides immediate assessment and treatment for medical conditions that need same-day treatment. Emergency services," it goes on to say, "are higher, more specialized level of care, and that service will continue to be available in Nanaimo, Port Alberni and Comox."

S. Fraser: Again, how does the minister expect the public to have any idea what's going on with this project, this much-lauded project, when you…. It was the member for Parksville-Qualicum on June 27…. The member responds — this is her constituency — and she says…. This is Hansard — I was here when she said it: "The urgent-care ward will open in September, providing year-round emergency services."

So the public sees that on the record of Hansard. This was a written, prepared statement by the member for Parksville-Qualicum in this House.

Now, what is the public to believe? How will the public have any faith in this? It's been a Keystone Kops project from the beginning. Is the minister going to refute what the member for Parksville-Qualicum says about her own centre? Or is she mistaken?

Hon. T. Lake: The member seems very exercised over something about which we have had absolutely no complaints from the public, on this issue.

I can tell the member that there are 11 physicians already on board to cover urgent care — urgent care being as I described earlier — and there are two offers made to primary care physicians. Vancouver Island Health is making significant progress on acquiring medical professionals to provide the care as outlined in the schedule that I referred to earlier.

S. Fraser: I know I have to finish, and I'm taking an extra liberty here. Thank you to the member beside me for allowing that.

No complaints? Well, the front page of the Parksville-Qualicum Beach News, dated July 9. The minister might want to check his files before making statements like there have been no complaints. Suzan Jennings says she felt that she was risking her life to get to this clinic to get some blood work. It's in the Parksville-Qualicum Beach News, front page of July 9, 2013 — just to correct the record one last time before I must sit down.

Hon. T. Lake: I guess I wonder what the member is doing in his constituency office to work with the community to help his constituents understand the facility and the nature of the staged opening. That would be my question back to him — instead of being so negative.

In terms of doing homework, I just said, despite the member's comments, that there are 11 physicians signed up for urgent care and two primary care physicians that are considering contracts as well.

A. Weaver: I have a number of questions. I recognize that there won't be time for them all to be answered, so I'll provide written questions afterwards to the minister.

The first question is a concern that's been expressed by many within my community and elsewhere with respect to the rising administrative costs of the health care system. My question to the minister is: over the past decade, up to and including this budget, what is the percentage of managerial and administrative costs compared to front-end health delivery cost expenses, and have those expenses increased annually?

[1705]

What provisions, directives and guidelines have been implemented or are being considered to mitigate rising health care administration costs?

My assertion is that as a function of time, one will find that the percentage of the overall health care budget allocated to administration will have increased over the last decade. I recognize that this data may not be available now, and if it could be provided after the fact, I would be most grateful.

Hon. T. Lake: Just a word of acknowledgment: I appreciate the member providing the questions ahead of time. That gives our staff an opportunity to find the necessary information.

Administration is often cited as part of the health care system that's bloated, that needs to be reduced. It's one of those easy targets. I think all of us assume that there must be some savings that we can make in admin, and certainly, all health authorities look at ways of doing that.

The target is 10 percent for administration and support, and most health authorities are very close to that. I don't have figures going back as far as the member has asked, but I can tell you that from 2009-10, '10-11 and '11-12, I do have those figures.

For instance, in the Fraser Health Authority in 2009-10 it was 9.9, and it stands at 9.1 percent in '11-12. Interior has gone from 11 percent in '09-10 to 10.3 percent in '11-12. Northern is a little higher, and again, they have more unique challenges, if you like. They don't have the critical mass, perhaps, that the other health authorities do. They are at 13.6 percent; Provincial Health Services at 9. 4 percent; Vancouver Island at 10 percent; and Vancouver Coastal at 9.3 percent.

Most of them have come down a little bit from '09-10 to '11-12. I know from talking to my own health authority on this issue that they are working very hard to try and reduce their administration costs as much as possible.

A. Weaver: My next question concerns a government statement that by 2015 they will provide every citizen of B.C. an opportunity to have a family doctor. I have al-
[ Page 1029 ]
ready been approached by a constituent who is struggling with long-term care for a patient, a daughter. It turns out that in southern Vancouver Island there is not a single general practitioner south of Mill Bay accepting new patients. That includes the entire capital regional district.

My question to the minister, then, is: what steps are being taken in this budget to access the shortage of general practitioners in B.C. and, in particular, southern Vancouver Island, where I live?

Hon. T. Lake: We had quite a long discussion earlier about the challenge of recruiting physicians. We pointed out that there are in fact more physicians for rural residents in British Columbia than the Canadian average — quite a significant difference — but we recognize that it is still a challenge.

The member and I share that same challenge in our communities. In the city of Kamloops and in some of the smaller communities around Kamloops, finding a physician — if you don't have a relationship with a physician already — can be extremely challenging for new residents to the area. It's probably one of the most common concerns I have in my constituency office, so I share the member's concern.

Let me just outline some of the things that we are doing. The GP for Me program supports and incentives began April 1 of this year. That's a physician registry for family doctors that wish to participate in the GP for Me program. That allows them to access a suite of incentives that are available through this program. Physicians commit to providing full service family practice. They confirm the physician-patient relationship with each of their patients and work with their local division of family practice to develop community-specific supports to encourage patients to find a family doctor.

Some of the incentives. For instance, there's a $15-per-call telephone fee. That means that a patient doesn't necessarily have to come in to the office. They can do a telephone consultation. That will enable physicians to bill a total of 500 of those particular types of visits each year. As the member probably is aware, there are some times when you just want to have a quick telephone consult with your doctor, and that allows the doctor to perhaps take on some new patients.

[1710]

A new intake incentive supports physicians in providing care to vulnerable populations, including frail in residential care, frail in the community and cancer patients.

I know, for instance, that when my mom was undergoing complex chronic medical conditions, it was extremely difficult for her to move from a physician to another physician. And a lot of physicians find it extremely daunting to take on complex cases as new patients, so we're trying to increase the incentives for doctors to do that.

An expansion of conference fees to help physicians coordinate patient care planning with other physicians and health care providers. Physicians can receive $40 per 15-minute patient conference so that they can talk with physicians that may have dealt with the patient earlier.

Additional targeted funding of $40 million over three years will be available to the divisions of family practice to enable them to work collaboratively with health authorities to identify community-specific supports to aid patients in finding a family physician. Specifically, the divisions in southern Vancouver Island are taking advantage of this funding.

It's an ongoing challenge. We don't doubt that it's going to take a lot of work. We've put a lot of resources both in training doctors and in providing incentives — I talked about recruitment programs earlier — and also training and utilization of nurse practitioners to try to support the primary health facilities throughout the province.

It's something we will probably, I'm sure — as many jurisdictions in Canada and around the world are dealing with it — continue to deal with, but that won't stop us from continuing to reach out and try new programs and new opportunities as they present themselves.

A. Weaver: To the topic of mental health, the member for North Island pointed to the chronic shortage of spaces in the adolescent mental health arena on Vancouver Island. Ledger House is the one facility, located in Oak Bay–Gordon Head, that serves the entire Island. There's been significant coverage lately about the long-term wait times and gaps and the crisis associated with adolescent mental health in general on Vancouver Island.

Families have reported that their children have been discharged from local hospitals and that they are unable to provide the type of care that is needed, yet they have been required to wait three to four weeks on average for a bed at Ledger House, the only facility, as I mentioned, on Vancouver Island for adolescent mental health. It's the only one capable of providing the type of support that these adolescents require.

My question, then, is: what steps does this budget take to reduce wait times at Ledger House to enhance quality and access for adolescent mental health? And would the minister be open to exploring ideas with local communities here as to other means and ways of using other space to expand the potential availability of beds in a similar fashion to those in Ledger House?

Hon. T. Lake: Ledger House is, as the member knows, a 14-bed specialized regional service that provides in-patient care for children and youth across the Island.

VIHA, the Ministry of Children and Family Development and the Ministry of Health held an all-day planning session on child, youth and family mental health to enhance access and quality of service just recently. Certainly, we will continue to work with the com-
[ Page 1030 ]
munity to look at some of the challenges that we face.

But in addition to Ledger House, VIHA has dedicated additional resources. I'll just go through a couple of those. At Victoria General Hospital a mental health clinician is on the pediatrics unit eight hours a day, seven days a week. They are hiring a child psychiatry position to provide additional psychiatry consults. They are expanding the hours of availability of the crisis nurses in the emergency room to 8 a.m. to midnight, seven days a week, and also hiring a crisis coordinator to assist with managing care.

Beyond Victoria General Hospital, VIHA has received funding for three additional child psychiatrists. They will provide support in various communities on the Island, including the north Island.

A. Weaver: One of the problems with adolescent mental health is, of course, when people flow from being an adolescent to an adult. Are there any initiatives in place within the Ministry of Health to actually transition people as they move from adolescent mental health, in working with the Ministry of Children and Family Development, to adult mental health care?

[1715]

Hon. T. Lake: There's currently a collaboration between Children and Youth Mental Health and Substance Use Collaborative. There's $1.3 million. It's being piloted at the moment with MCFD and the Ministry of Health to provide timely access for an increased number of children, youth and their families to integrate mental health and substance-use services and support. It's a collaborative approach between the two ministries.

We've recognized for some time now that as children transition into the adult phase of their life, sometimes there are gaps. We are working hard across ministries — with the MCFD particularly, but Ministry of Social Development and Ministry of Health — to try to address those gaps that exist at the moment.

A. Weaver: My final question. I did submit — provided to the minister's office — four questions on preventative health care that I would be delighted if the minister could provide written answers to. I won't have time to ask them now.

One question I did want to ask is whether or not the minister and the ministry, through this budget, have explored the potential for innovative ways of actually funding medical students by providing full tuition fees for medical students in a manner similar to some other provinces, including the province of Manitoba and the military, which actually fund medical students to go through medical school, with the condition that they serve time — not in a prison sense. They provide services at a facility that is deemed to be in the best interests of the province or facility that they're working with.

Why I say that is that it allows access to medical training to a more diverse sector of our society — those who cannot afford the fees and the living expenses. It also allows the province, through the ministry, to assist in funding medical programs in communities that need them, through innovative ways of actually training them to begin with.

Hon. T. Lake: There are a number of ways that we try to make it more affordable for students to consider training in medicine. I wanted to say veterinary medicine. I had to correct myself. One of the primary ways we do that — as we have, in general, for post-secondary education — is to spread out the training.

Now if a student wants to go to medical school, they don't have to necessarily go to Vancouver or Victoria. They can go to Kelowna or to Prince George. So people in those communities that are considering medical school may not have to leave their home and may not have as high a cost in terms of their living expenses. So that's one way.

We also have a number of different programs, which I spoke about earlier. I'll just talk about the rural physicians for B.C. incentive. It does provide physicians that would like to locate in underserviced areas with $100,000. Of course, that could be used to pay off student loans.

The Ministry of Advanced Education has a student loan forgiveness program for health care professionals — including physicians, but not limited to physicians. The B.C. student loan debt is forgiven — one-third per year for each of the years that the physician practises in an underserved community. So after three years a physician's B.C. student loan would be fully paid off. That does attract, I think, young physicians into those underserviced areas.

Also, in August of last year the federal government announced that eligible family physicians and nurses who work in rural communities will have a portion of their Canada student loan forgiven, beginning in spring of 2013.

[1720]

I think between the two levels of government there are incentive programs out there to try and attract young health care professionals in the various different types of health care professions into those underserviced areas.

J. Darcy: We'll pick up where we left off. Yesterday we were having a discussion about the pressures on our acute care hospital system and alternate-level-of-care beds. I believe we concluded that segment of our discussion with the minister committing that he would share information with us about the number of alternate-level-of-care beds by health authority as well as by hospital. Am I correct in that?

Interjection.
[ Page 1031 ]

J. Darcy: Yes. I understand that it's been a long day. That was not a trick question. I understand. It's been a long day. It may be a difficult time of day to move into substantive issues of health care reform. But hey, that's what we're here to talk about.

I'd like to move next into some questions regarding how we take the pressure off our acute care hospital system. We've talked about alternate-level-of-care beds in particular. Of course, that leads to discussion about solutions in other parts of the health care system, because you don't take pressure off the acute care system unless you are solving…. We can't deal with it in isolation from other parts of the health care system, namely home and community care and primary care.

So I have some questions related to that. Certainly, the experience in many jurisdictions is that the more we integrate the various parts of our health care system, the more effective we will be in serving the needs of patients and in achieving better health outcomes.

It's critical that we move beyond the kind of isolation that we have and the fragmentation of different parts of our health care system. In fact, the report that I just received earlier today from the Select Standing Committee on Health, the interim report for 2011-2012, speaks very clearly to our health care system being fragmented and inefficient, resulting in many patients obtaining care in the wrong system, in the wrong setting.

It talks about the current levels of long-term community and home-based care not being sufficient to meet the needs of the population today. It says that that capacity, namely the capacity of community and home-based care, needs to be enhanced in order to cope with the rising demand.

My first question to the minister is whether he believes that, in order to take the pressure off the acute care hospital system, we have to invest significantly in home support and community care so that people are cared for in the appropriate setting — the appropriate setting and also, by far, the less expensive setting.

Hon. T. Lake: I absolutely agree that we need to continue to invest in residential care, community care, and we've been doing just that. In 2001-2002, on community care, there was just over $400 million budgeted, and for 2013-14 we are at $949 million budgeted. That's an increase of well over 100 percent, obviously.

Residential care in 2001 stood at just under $1.2 billion, and we are now at $1.8 billion. So yeah, I think the member is correct. The analysis of the Select Standing Committee on Health is similar to analyses that you will find in other jurisdictions. We need to continue to invest as we see the population aging. We need to invest in community and residential care, which is why we have been doing that over the last 12 years, and we'll continue to do so.

[1725]

J. Darcy: The Ombudsperson's report on seniors care cites statistics that show a reduction of approximately 30 percent in home support over a number of years, I believe over the past ten years. I wonder if the minister could speak to that and if the minister could talk about where the new investments in home support appear in this budget.

Hon. T. Lake: I can say that home support was at $258.5 million in 2001-2002. As of '12-13, in the last fiscal year we spent $406.7 million. I think that's about a 55 percent increase over that period of time. So we continue to invest in home support.

J. Darcy: The Ombudsperson, when referring to this issue, talked about the aging population and talked about the patient population that uses home support the most, which is those above the age of 75 — the changed demographics and, therefore, the changing needs. The 30 percent figure referred not to the absolute amount of money invested but the amount of money that is going, on average, to seniors who need home support the most, which is those seniors in the 75-plus age group.

If the ministry has different figures than the Ombudsperson, could the minister please explain where the minister believes that the Ombudsperson is wrong?

Hon. T. Lake: I will certainly commit to finding out the reference in the Ombudsperson's report, but I can tell you that from 2004-2005 to 2009-2010, the number of home support clients increased by 6 percent. In that time period the number of clients receiving professional services — nursing, rehabilitation, other services — increased by 26 percent. The number of clients receiving adult day services increased by 7 percent, and the number of hours of home support services per client per year increased by 21 percent.

The information I have certainly would not align with the member's comments, but I will refer back. We'll find the reference in the Ombudsperson's report and provide a specific answer to that question.

[1730]

J. Darcy: I appreciate that, and I will certainly find the references as well. But when we discussed alternate-level-of-care beds yesterday, there seemed to be agreement on the figures, that the percentage of beds in hospitals occupied by patients who should be in alternate-level-of-care had gone up by approximately 33 percent, 35 percent — a significant number.

So something's not working. If the minister says that significant new funds have been invested in home support and significant new funds have been invested in residential care, then, what's not working? That means that we are not taking the pressure off our acute care hospitals and that the number of alternate-level-of-care
[ Page 1032 ]
beds is going up.

Somewhere that negative cycle needs to be broken. We're suggesting that it needs to be by significant investment in home support, in residential care and also in mental health and addictions spaces.

Hon. T. Lake: To the member: I think we both agree that alternative-level-of-care beds are not the best place to look after people that require a more appropriate facility, whether it's long-term residential care or it's in their own homes. Hopefully, the goal, as I mentioned yesterday, is to keep people out of the acute care system at all.

We talked about a number of different programs yesterday. I'll remind the member of some of those. The Home is Best program, for instance, has health care professionals that go into seniors homes and help them with dietary advice, other types of health care advice that would ensure that they stay out of the acute care system. In fact, in Interior Health, for instance…. I was reading one of their newsletters the other day, and it showed the reduction, for this one particular patient, in the number of visits to hospital that this patient required after the Home is Best program was initiated.

Another program is the BreatheWell program, where respiratory therapists work with patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, help them in terms of their medications, in terms of exercises they can do to help with their condition. Again, there was an example of a patient in Penticton, I believe, who had far fewer acute care visits to deal with respiratory difficulties.

Now, these are relatively new programs, and it does take time for them to translate over the system and relieve that pressure. And of course, it's never only one solution. There are a number of different solutions. Provision of more primary care facilities, so that people aren't going to emergency for situations that can be best looked after with a primary care, interdisciplinary health care centre.

There's a lot of work going on. Have we got to where we need to be? No. That's why it's ongoing work, but we are committed to work with health authorities to continue to find ways and means of reducing the number of ALC patients.

J. Darcy: Our objective in raising these questions is certainly to improve our health care system and to ensure that more resources are put into those parts of the health care system that can take pressure off the more expensive acute care system.

[1735]

Certainly, if I can refer back to the Select Standing Committee on Health, it also says: "The current levels of long-term, community and home-based care are not sufficient to meet the needs of our population today." It also talks about overcrowding in emergency rooms and acute care hospitals being, in part, because of limited community care resources. The report itself, Interim Report 2011-12, also refers to overcrowding in emergency rooms and hospitals being, in part, due to limited community care resources and a lack of integration between community-based and hospital resources.

The minister refers to the Home is Best program, which we certainly think is an important initiative. Certainly, from the experience that many of us have with the health care system, and if you look at what lots of health care practitioners and health care policy analysts will say, we are very, very, very good at pilot projects in health care. We're not so good at system change.

I think that the objectives of the Home is Best program are very good objectives and ones that we would support. My question is: how do we move beyond pilot projects and move to some fundamental system change? I understand we're going to have prototypes in various communities, various types, in the province. The minister will probably be aware that there have been many, many pilot projects. How do we go from pilot projects to system change?

Hon. T. Lake: I was handed some statistics on alternate-level-of-care days that are age-standardized per 1,000 population. I guess we can look at figures differently, but it does show that across British Columbia in 2001-2002 we were at 75.7 days per 1,000 population, and that was reduced to 54.1 in 2011-2012. That varies across different health authorities. That's not to say that the problem has been solved. It hasn't. But there does seem to be some improvement, particularly in some health authorities.

Getting to the member's question about moving from pilot project to institutional or systemic change. That's always a challenge. But as part of our innovation and change agenda in the ministry, we are doing exactly that. In 2008-2010, integration activities were tested with a small population in groups of family physicians, and over the next five years clinical and service integration will take a system approach, aligning existing integrated health networks and service delivery lines with the divisions of family practice. I know that the divisions of family practice have been….

I hear constantly very positive things about this initiative that brings together primary care physicians in different communities. They are supported. They have administrative support. It really helps them connect with the needs of the community. So we will be working with the divisions of family practice and collaborative service committees to reach priority patient populations, including mental health and substance use, chronic comorbid, the frail elderly and maternity needs of the community.

It is something where we are, under our innovation and change agenda, trying to take what were pilot programs and institute them across the system. It is the only way, I think, that we can meet the challenge of providing
[ Page 1033 ]
a sustainable health care system.

J. Darcy: What increased investments are there in home support in this budget?

[1740]

Hon. T. Lake: The health authorities are provided with budgets, and then they report out how much they spend on community care. We don't tell them "you've spent X amount on community care" when the budget is set. They do report out how much they are spending.

For instance, in fiscal 2012-13, there was a total of $948 million across the five regional health authorities spent on community care, which includes home care. As I mentioned earlier in our discussion, the health authorities, on average, are getting a 2.6 percent increase in their global budgets, so we would expect the number $948 million to increase by approximately 2.6 percent in this coming fiscal year.

J. Darcy: There's something I'm not understanding here. I mean, when the ministry wants to drive change, it drives it. My understanding from earlier discussions is that in the case of addiction beds, the ministry has directed the health authorities on what they need to do in that area. There are many other programs the ministry decides are going to happen, and they happen. That includes pay-for-performance programs. When I asked a question about collective agreements…. Those are negotiated by the ministry, but they are covered by health authority budgets.

So why is it, in an area like home support, for instance, where significantly increased investments in home support and home nursing have been proven to reduce the pressures on the acute care system and to keep seniors out of residential care longer…? Why is that not a focus, a priority, that the minister is prepared to drive and show leadership on with health authorities?

Hon. T. Lake: The member is correct. There should be an incentive — a signal, if you like — for health authorities. I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear earlier. The integrated primary and community care initiative is $50 million that's set aside each year. That is to drive that kind of a change. In '12-13, for instance, Fraser Health had just over $14 million from that initiative. It averaged, of course…. It varies from health authority to health authority, depending on their size, but each health authority then got a certain amount of that $50 million, as they will over each of the next years.

That is to drive that kind of a change, and as I mentioned, it takes a little bit of time to see that result and a decrease in the ALC numbers. But from the stories that we hear of programs that are up and running, thanks to the integrated primary community care initiatives, we are seeing fewer visits to hospital. It will take some time to see how that affects the alternate level of care and number of beds. But I'm hopeful from the early results we've seen that we will have a positive impact.

J. Darcy: Is that money that you referred to — you said $50 million? Is that money from existing health authority budgets that now need to be earmarked for that? Or is it additional money from the ministry to the health authorities?

[1745]

Hon. T. Lake: This is additional funding for the health authorities. It's targeted at frail seniors and patients with complex and chronic conditions, as well as patients with mental health and substance-use addictions.

J. Darcy: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. You touched on primary care reform. I'd like to ask a couple of questions related to that.

In 2010 the government promised to ensure that all B.C. citizens — you spoke about this in response to some questions earlier — who want a family doctor will have one by 2015 — the GP for Me program, which was announced in more detail in 2013. How does the government plan to keep this promise to British Columbians, as 2015 is only two years away, and what progress has been made to date?

Hon. T. Lake: Yes, we've had a lot of discussion about the challenge of providing primary care services.

There are a number of things. The GP for Me program is one of them. That is a collaboration between the BCMA and the Ministry of Health. Total funding set aside for that program is $132.4 million.

That's broken down into $40 million distributed over the next three years to the divisions of family practice, which we mentioned, to evaluate community needs, develop and implement local community plans to improve primary care capacity; $22 million to enable physicians to consult with patients via telephone — we talked about that earlier; $20 million to support a new incentive to assist physicians in providing care to vulnerable populations, including the frail in residential care, frail in the community, cancer patients, patients with severe disabilities, mental health and substance use and maternity; $18.5 million will expand the current complex care management fee — that's what we talked about where you have a chronic complex patient — so recognizing the extra time and effort that is required, physicians can apply for extra funding there; and $31.9 million to better support existing care by family physicians in hospitals.

We're just starting this, and yes, 2015 will come quickly, so we do need to track this closely.

I can say, though, that we've done a number of other things before the GP for Me program that have had positive results. I mentioned that we have over 100 percent
[ Page 1034 ]
increase in the number of doctors being trained here in British Columbia. In fact, while it is still a problem in British Columbia, in terms of the availability of primary care physicians as well as specialists, in British Columbia in 2011 there were 212 physicians per 100,000 population, compared to 209 per 100,000 for Canada — so slightly more than the average for the country. I know other jurisdictions are dealing with this too.

[1750]

Since 2001 the number of physicians billing in B.C. has increased from 8,234 to 10,121. That's a 23 percent increase, while the population has grown 11.2 percent over that same period.

Now, there are other factors which have occurred. We have a doctor demographic, if you like, that perhaps is different than the doctor-physician demographic that we had in the past — lifestyle choices. There's a different mix in terms of male-female ratio in the physician population. There are a number of different factors that probably lead — and expectations, I think, of people too….

Today we tend to look to the medical community for answers. It's part of the increased sophistication and knowledge base that we have. But the A GP for Me program is one of the ways that we want to connect people to primary care. The nurse practitioners for B.C. program is another one. Not in every case is it necessary to see a physician, and in many instances, a nurse practitioner can provide very valuable service for primary care.

J. Darcy: I understand you gave a number of statistics there about the number of doctors per population and comparisons with other provinces. But my question was quite specific about the commitment made in 2010 — that every B.C. citizen who wanted a family doctor would have one by 2015 — and what the progress was to date, given that there are two years to come. I'm more than happy to have you get back to us with written information on that, if you have it.

The minister referred to the initiatives around the divisions of family practice. Could I ask the minister whether there are any written evaluations of that that could be shared with us about the achievements of it and of the challenges that still have to be overcome in putting it into practice?

I understand that's a pretty complex issue, and I'm asking for that, if you can make that available to us.

Hon. T. Lake: My last response, I thought, was giving the member a snapshot of where we are in our quest to have a doctor for every patient in British Columbia that wanted one. I think the A GP for Me program, when it was announced and the money committed, was a significant step in the progress towards that target. Certainly, we'll have to monitor it closely.

In terms of the divisions of family practice, again, I mentioned that this is a joint ministry–B.C. Medical Association committee, and it's called the General Practice Services Committee. In fact, they are just going out with an RFP to do an evaluation of the initiative to date.

J. Darcy: The minister referred to nurse practitioners and that patients do not always need to see a family doctor. I agree with that. I wanted to ask a question that both reflects a view on this side of the House and, also, the perspective of a number of organizations of health care professionals in the province.

The Registered Nurses Association of B.C., the Licensed Practical Nurses Association of B.C., the B.C. Nurse Practitioner Association, among other organizations, have expressed concern that the government's initiatives in the area of primary care do not sufficiently take into consideration the important contributions that other health care professionals make to high quality primary care delivery.

There's also a growing body of evidence in Canada and in other jurisdictions that shows that a more integrated primary and community care model will both improve health outcomes and help to control health costs by reducing unnecessary visits to emergency rooms and hospitalizations.

[1755]

The minister has said that he believes that we do need to take a more comprehensive approach to primary care reform. He has referred to the nurse practitioner initiative.

I wanted to just ask him about a figure that I dug out since we spoke about this yesterday. In 2012 the government announced $22 million over three years to hire 190 nurse practitioners, an increase over 153 that were already in the system. And 72 have registered, but with no job. This is something that one hears anecdotally, but there are also statistics that show that there are significant difficulties in nurse practitioners finding placements.

That would seem to indicate that, especially since we are now going to be graduating 45 more a year…. We could argue about whether we should be trying to graduate more than that, but 45 more a year. One of the challenges appears to be that there are no funds provided for administrative or overhead support for practices to be able to use nurse practitioners and to integrate them into health care practices.

I wonder if the minister could speak to that. Is it your understanding that that's a challenge to the increased use of nurse practitioners? If so, what are the ministry's plans to tackle that?

Hon. T. Lake: We were able to get some statistics from the College of Registered Nurses of B.C. In 2012 there were 248 fully qualified nurse practitioners in British Columbia, and 212 reported working full-time or part-time clinical hours. There may be some that are working
[ Page 1035 ]
fewer hours than they would like to, but again, 212 of the 248 reported working full-time or part-time.

In terms of overhead and administration, of course, there's a mix of different models. The B.C. Cancer Agency just announced using nurse practitioners for unattached cancer treatment patients that don't have a primary care physician. Of course, overhead would not be an issue for them. Nurse practitioners that may work in a health authority clinic facility would have administration overhead paid for through the health authority.

Where nurse practitioners may work in a physician's office or a multipractitioner office, those physicians are private corporations, if you like, and they provide the overhead, so that is part of the cost of doing business. Interestingly, our health care system is provided mostly by essentially private corporations in the form of physicians and lab services, etc.

We don't seem to have the feedback that administration and overhead is a challenge in terms of employing nurse practitioners. I do know that whenever you have some somewhat new approach, it takes awhile to break down resistance.

[1800]

We talked about that yesterday, and I had a discussion with the member for Nelson-Creston about this issue as well. It does take time to break down those barriers and for established people in the profession to accept change. I'm confident that that is happening quite rapidly and, in fact, happening faster in British Columbia than elsewhere.

J. Darcy: Just one last question related to primary care. Based on some experience in British Columbia and experience in other jurisdictions, there is a model that would involve nurse practitioners but also a multidisciplinary team of health care practitioners in community clinics, in community health care centres. It would be a very effective direction to go in. Teams of health care practitioners that include physicians, nurse practitioners, nurses, dietitians and nutritionists, social workers in some cases, both take pressure off the acute care system and reduce pressure on physicians.

You referred to lifestyle choices. Certainly, I know that a lot of medical students coming out these days are saying that they don't want to be run on the clock — on the fee-for-service system, the way that they are now — and are looking for different models of practice.

It's also a model that provides a far more preventive form of health care. My question to the minister is: is that a model that the minister supports? If so, what leadership and what resources will the minister ensure are invested in order to make these not just pilot projects but a reality across British Columbia?

Hon. T. Lake: I was quick to jump to my feet because, as the member was describing this vision of an integrated community primary care centre, she was describing almost to a T the King Street Clinic in North Kamloops, which I toured earlier this year. This is a clinic that provides — especially to a vulnerable population and particularly to those dealing with mental and substance-use issues but other members of the community…. They have a psychiatrist there. They have nurses. They have physicians. They have counsellors, social workers.

I mentioned Car 40, which has a paramedic and an RCMP officer that will actually go and work with vulnerable populations on the street. Often King Street Clinic is where they are brought for those services.

Absolutely, it is a model that I support. I met with the vice-president of community and integrated care for Interior Health just last week in my office to talk about this. We are supporting that with the integrated program that I mentioned earlier to assist the divisions of family practice and set up exactly these kinds of clinics in communities, based on the communities' needs.

Part of that money, as I mentioned, was to allow the divisions of family practice to survey the needs of the community, because not every community will need all of the same services. But that support is there.

As we see those succeed, and as more and more practitioners experience that model, I believe they will embrace it, and we will see more of those types of multidisciplinary clinics in British Columbia, which will take the pressure off the acute care facilities.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

J. Darcy: Thank you, Minister. We certainly look forward to exploring those issues further in the newly reconstituted Health Committee.

I'd like to return briefly to capital commitments that we discussed yesterday. I don't know if that requires a shift change on your side.

[1805]

I'm returning to this issue today because there were some things that came up, some answers in the estimates session yesterday, that I believe were very concerning. I hope that the minister will agree that it is absolutely critical that government be open and transparent about how money is being spent, especially in health care, which consumes a significant amount of the provincial budget.

Presumably, when we are discussing estimates, when we are discussing budgets and when we are looking at service plans, which lay out the priorities for the ministry over the coming year, one would expect that capital projects that are being undertaken would be set out there with some consistency. With concept plans, the minister referred to high-level plans. I don't know if that's the same as a concept plan in the terminology the minister is using. Concept plans, business plans, which also have costs attached to them, and then capital commitments
[ Page 1036 ]
over specific time frames….

But in going back over the service plan and the capital commitments in particular, in fact, we see that some projects are mentioned and some aren't. In some projects, the cost for the business plan is referred to and the financial commitment for the capital project is referred to. In other cases, it isn't.

I have to say that what we on this side of the House find particularly disturbing…. The minister's response to one of my questions yesterday was that of course in elections people say things for political purposes. That may well be the case, but surely, capital commitments that have been made in any way, shape or form should also be contained in the service plan. And if they are, in fact, commitments of the government, they should be contained in the service plan.

I want to return to some of the issues that we canvassed yesterday. If we review the capital commitments in the service plan…. I know that the member for Surrey–Green Timbers will come back on a specific question about Surrey Memorial Hospital. But in that case, there are specific figures that are talked about as far as capital commitment.

The same applies for Kelowna, capital commitment — timelines, capital commitment; children's and women's hospital, redevelopment, capital commitment; North Island hospitals project, capital commitment; Lakes District, capital commitment; Queen Charlotte–Haida Gwaii, capital commitment; HOpe centre; and so on.

The minister indicated yesterday that when I asked a question about the Liberal platform from 2013…. It said that the Burnaby Hospital development is "underway" or in progress. That's a quote from the Liberal platform. I asked the question that it did not appear to be in either the February or the June 2013 service plan or budget. I asked the minister for the status of this redevelopment, and the minister said: "Yes, it's there. It's in the capital commitments."

So we've scoured them, and I'm wondering if the minister could please enlighten us about where the Burnaby Hospital capital commitment exists in the service plan with the list of capital projects.

Hon. T. Lake: You can see a binder with my deputy minister here that outlines all of the different capital topics. The service plan is a condensation of the capital plan. But I would point the member to the budget and fiscal plan of 2013 through to 2015-2016 in the June update. In that budget the member will find all the health facilities that are incorporated into that three-year plan.

[1810]

It includes Victoria's Royal Jubilee Hospital; Fort St. John Hospital; expansions to Kelowna General and Vernon Jubilee; the Northern Cancer Control Strategy; Lions Gate Hospital; and the Surrey emergency critical care tower, which I know the member for Surrey–Green Timbers was just touring recently; the Lakes District Hospital; the Queen Charlotte–Haida Gwaii hospital; Royal Inland Hospital; North Island hospitals; Interior heart and surgical centre; children's and women's hospital. Those that have a business plan are put into the three-year capital plan.

I mentioned, in terms of the Burnaby Hospital, that this is a phased approach. When you have an existing facility, it has to be phased in so that you can keep the facility open to service the community. We recognize that some phases need to be done right away, so $5.5 million is being spent at the moment to upgrade the emergency department, the endoscopy area and the processing department, where all the instruments are sterilized.

Each phase will go through a business plan, and when that business plan is completed, we will have a final, or a closer and finer, estimate of the cost. That is when it gets put into the capital plan. We simply can't put it in the three-year capital plan if we don't know the exact numbers, because as the member is well aware, the three-year plan for the operating and capital is very detailed. Only numbers that have a high degree of certainty are put into the three-year fiscal plan.

The ten-year plan is different, and those numbers are set aside on a notional basis. For instance, the Burnaby Hospital notionally has $525 million. That doesn't appear in the three-year plan in the fiscal update, but it is on the planning horizon. Once each component of the business plan is completed, we will have finer numbers that will be included in the actual three-year plan as we near that particular time.

J. Darcy: Does the minister not agree that in the interests of transparency it would be a good idea to…? For some of the projects that are being undertaken, the service plan outlines what's happening with the business case and what the financial commitment is. In other cases, it isn't. But with questioning or during the election campaign, we've heard certain figures referred to.

I'm very pleased to hear, and I'm sure the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake will be very pleased to hear that there is a significant commitment for moving ahead with the capital projects of Burnaby Hospital. I'm certainly absolutely thrilled, and my constituents in New Westminster will be very thrilled to know that there is actually $700 million committed to the Royal Columbian Hospital in New Westminster. Yesterday, we learned that for the Penticton general hospital, there's $300 million committed.

Surely, all of these things need to be there in the same place if we're talking about financial transparency and accountability, and if we're talking about undertaking these in a planned way over the next three years, five years or ten years.

Hon. T. Lake: Perhaps we are splitting hairs, or maybe
[ Page 1037 ]
we just have a difference of opinion. In order to get a confidence level of the amount that we are committing in terms of taxpayer dollars to put into a budget, we need to have a business plan done. So you will have a concept plan or a master site redevelopment plan. There will be a notional amount that is really an estimate of what it would cost for the concept plan.

[1815]

The government makes a commitment towards that, and the member has mentioned some of those commitments. Then as we go through the business plan for each of the phases, because often these are multiphased plans, each phase will be committed to in the fiscal plan and construction will start. RFPs will be issued and contracts signed for construction.

There are a lot of moving parts to a capital plan. Sometimes there may be reasons why a particular project doesn't move forward quite as quickly as had been anticipated, and it may be, then, that that particular project goes out another year or two. That may allow another project that is ready to go faster. It will move up in the capital planning process.

In terms of including all of this information in the service plan, as I mentioned, the service plan really is a high-level document in terms of the direction of the ministry. It is not designed to be a comprehensive detail of every part of the ministry's operations. I think for capital, the budget document is probably a far more detailed document to review.

J. Darcy: I understand that completely. What I'm asking about is consistency. I understand that unless a business case has been developed, it's not possible to talk about what the capital commitments will be and over what period of time. It's the fact that in some cases the minister is able to say, "We're going to spend this amount of money," when the business case hasn't even been done. A case in point being the patient care tower in the Penticton Hospital, where, during the election campaign, it was stated that $300 million would be spent.

The minister yesterday referred to $300 million, yet it says in the service plan that the government is proceeding with business case planning. So there isn't a business case yet, but there are financial commitments being made. My question is about transparency and consistency in the approach by government.

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned earlier, a concept plan serves to try to give you an order of magnitude. In this case, I believe it was $300 million for Penticton Hospital. The commitment is there that we'll build the patient care tower in Penticton. We will refine the amount, and it will be committed to in the capital plan as the business plan is developed.

I'll give you an example of inconsistency. That's to say you're going build the interior cancer centre in Kamloops, and then it ends up being built in Kelowna. Now, that is inconsistent.

J. Darcy: I assume that that's some slap at someone going back ten, 20, 30 years. I have no idea. I'll just let that one go.

The member for Surrey–Green Timbers on capital projects.

S. Hammell: Minister, I would like to hover over Burnaby Hospital for a minute. It seems to me I was in the House when you talked about it yesterday. You said, if I recall correctly, that there was $5½ million being spent in capital right now, and it's currently underway. It's being renovated or upgraded. I hate to use the term, as we speak, but that was a very specific number.

I did hear you say that it was in the estimates. So is that $5½ million somewhere in the estimates that we have missed? That's just a question of me seeking information and knowledge from you.

The Chair: I believe, Member, that that question has been asked and answered.

[1820]

Hon. T. Lake: The $5½ million, as I mentioned, is for immediate improvements to the emergency department, endoscopy area and the processing department. It comes partly from the capital contribution that is included in what we would consider Fraser Health's sort of minor capital budget for immediate improvements and, also, a generous contribution of $476,000 from the Burnaby Hospital Foundation.

S. Hammell: To the minister: can you point me to where that is in terms of the Estimates? Is it in the book, or have I just missed that entirely?

Hon. T. Lake: If the member would turn to page 175 of the budget document, Vote 48 is capital funding for the Minister of Advanced Education, Minister of Education, Minister of Health and Minister of Natural Gas Development. Under that you would see health facilities at $414.474 million. So that $5½ million would come from that allocation.

S. Hammell: I'm amazed I missed it. Oh, it's in the Estimates, of course. I'm sorry. I mean, the comment back — it had to be caught, right? It's in the Estimates.

I'd like to also understand a few other things. Obviously, I'm not as wise as some other people here. Under "Surrey emergency/critical care tower" it says, for direct procurement, $65 million to be spent by March 31, 2013.

Then the next line says $129 million to be spent, and I assume it means by the spring of 2016. Does that actually mean that it's 2016 by the time the tower has had this
[ Page 1038 ]
amount of money spent? What exactly does that mean? Is there some phasing in of the program through two more years? Perhaps the minister can explain.

Hon. T. Lake: I didn't mean to be flippant in terms of the estimates. It is exactly what this process is about. It's a learning process for me, as well, to find out where all of these sums of money come from and to find that there is a combined capital account that addresses various ministries. I apologize if the member took any offence. I certainly didn't mean any.

[1825]

The Surrey Memorial Hospital project, the emergency department, will be opening very shortly. That portion of the project is a traditional government-funded, sort of design-build kind of a process.

The patient care tower, however, is a public-private partnership, and the financing of that is a little bit different than the traditional government debt service kind of financing. The patient care tower is slated to be finished by the spring of 2014, but the payments for that construction, through the P3 process, extend out to 2016. Perhaps that explains the lag time there.

S. Hammell: One line says "direct procurement." I assumed that that was some government money, and maybe that is a P3 also. Then underneath is a P3 contract. I understand that $267 million, under the P3 contract, would be paid out by March 2013, with another $51 million coming by the end of this summer.

The number that I'm curious about is the $129 million that is yet to come out through to the year 2016. My understanding…. I'm like you. We're learning this process. If this is a P3, then why wouldn't it be entitled as a P3 rather than direct procurement?

Hon. T. Lake: Again, this is a learning process for all of us in terms of these projects.

The direct procurement the member is referring to, the $129 million, is for some of the renovations that occur in other areas of the hospital. So the emergency department will be opened in September, patient care tower in 2014. Then there will be some other renovations that will occur in other parts of the hospital, sort of component by component, and those will be by direct procurement. These are renovations within the existing footprint of the hospital that go out into 2016.

S. Hammell: A couple of other questions around this. The total of those two figures, one of them being $194 million and the other being $318 million — and now I understand that some of that money is for further renovations, not the tower itself or the emergency — comes to $512 million. Is that the total amount spent on the tower and the emergency plus these renovations? Or is there other capital money somewhere else that is going towards this project?

Hon. T. Lake: The member is correct. It's $512 million.

J. Darcy: I believe we have about 25 minutes left. Is that right? I just want to gauge the time accordingly. In some cases, I may just read the questions into the record and ask for a written response, because we may be running out of time.

For a complete change of pace, the Canada-European trade agreement. I'm not going to ask you broad questions about the Canada-European trade agreement. My question is more specific because of the very deep concerns about its potential impact on rising pharmaceutical costs and the impact that that can have on health care costs in British Columbia.

Your government has recently indicated that it is also deeply concerned about this issue and is working now, I understand, with other provinces around how the Canada-European trade agreement can potentially drive up pharmaceutical costs — which we certainly think is a welcome shift from a position that was taken a few years ago.

[1830]

My question is if you can please clarify where the minister stands on the issue and what the progress of discussions is with other provinces in order to assert a common position with the federal government about the impact of CETA on pharmaceutical costs in this country and in this province.

Hon. T. Lake: The member is referring to the Canada–European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement. We have expressed our concern previously, as the member indicated, in terms of the costs that this may have, particularly on drug prices.

The previous Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation wrote to the federal Trade Minister on a number of occasions indicating B.C.'s concerns as well as requesting the federal government initiate a formal discussion with provinces and territories. B.C. negotiators have also raised this issue directly with the federal negotiators at the negotiating table.

I can say that it's still a little bit unclear to us how far the federal government is willing to go to meet the European Union's demand in terms of intellectual property. But we have had indications now that the federal government is willing to discuss compensation with provinces and territories.

I'm afraid that's about as much as I know on the subject. It is a very fluid file. The Council of the Federation is meeting at the moment, so I presume it could certainly be a subject of discussion there. We have on a number of occasions expressed our concern and will continue to work with other provinces and territories to mitigate the impact on the costs of pharmaceuticals to the citizens of
[ Page 1039 ]
British Columbia.

J. Darcy: Thank you to the minister for the response.

I think this next question I will read into the record. It involves lots of statistics.

Budget 2012's estimates for MSP spending in the 2012-13 fiscal year was cut by $7.7 million in the 2013 budget's restated figures for that year. My question is: what's the reason for that? If you could, please give us some detail about that. I expect that there are broad categories that you might refer to — per-patient funding, drug pricing, laboratory testing fees. We would really like to understand what reductions in those various items would entail.

Secondly, funding for MSP is set to increase, I understand, by 2.3 percent in 2013-14 over the 2012 estimated figure. But this increase is $44 million less than was originally planned for in the 2012 budget, because you did the figures three years out. What's the reason for that difference?

The third question…. While the increase in the MSP line item for 2014-15 and 2015-16 is $47 million over the two years, the 2014-15 plan is still $111 million less than what had been estimated and planned for in 2012. If the minister can please explain that disparity as well. We'll look forward to your written response on that.

[1835]

This question is about Maximus contract renewal. The Auditor General released a report on the contract with Maximus in February 2013 titled Health Benefits Operations: Are the Expected Benefits Being Achieved? He noted gaps in the ministry's monitoring of this contract and its supposed benefits and said that upgrades to technology and privacy protections were late or hadn't happened as promised.

Yet the government signed a new contract for $264 million over five years, which comes out to $53 million per year, or about 40 percent more than the original contract, the original contract being $32.4 million per year.

My first question is: what justified the increased annual cost of this contract?

Hon. T. Lake: The contract, as the member mentioned, has been extended for five years to March 31, 2020. The total of the 15-year contract is approximately $700 million over that 15 years.

The total value of the contract has increased due to the extension period as well as the addition of new contract scope. This included PharmaNet modernization, which is an e-health project, and the B.C. Services Card, which the member is probably quite familiar with. To provide a new B.C. Services Card to all British Columbians will provide better data, obviously, and better access to services.

J. Darcy: One of the things that I quoted to the minister was a statement by the Auditor General, who noted gaps in the ministry's monitoring of the contract and its supposed benefits and said that upgrades to technology and privacy protections were late or hadn't happened as promised.

My question was…. The government still went ahead and extended that contract. What was it that justified that increased annual cost, in light of the concerns expressed by the Auditor General?

Hon. T. Lake: The contract renewal was preceded by an end-of-term review and was negotiated in parallel with a performance audit, as the member mentioned, by the Office of the Auditor General.

Recommendations from both the review and the audit informed the negotiations with the service provider and resulted in enhancements to the contract. There were service level changes as well as improvements to governance and management oversight by the ministry. It was timely that the Auditor General did that review, and the recommendations of the Auditor General were incorporated into the language around the five-year extension.

J. Darcy: Thank you to the minister. Did the government look into whether it would be more cost-effective to bring this service back in-house?

[1840]

As a comparison, Terasen Gas decided in 2010 that it was moving its customer contract and billing operations back in-house. In fact, documents filed with the B.C. Utilities Commission reveal that Accenture's other two biggest clients in this province, B.C. Hydro and B.C. Transmission Corporation, have repatriated operations previously outsourced to the firm.

Did the government do a business case to see if contracting out was still the best option?

Hon. T. Lake: My deputy minister, Lindsay Kislock, who manages this file, informs me that there was a mid-term review and then another, a second, internal review prior to renegotiation. The review looked at two scenarios. One was bringing it back in-house. Another was going out to the market for an alternate provider. A decision based on that review was to renegotiate the five-year extension with Maximus.

J. Darcy: Is the minister prepared to share the business case that shows that contracting out remains the best option?

Hon. T. Lake: This review was prepared as advice to executive council, so it is protected by that privilege.

J. Darcy: I will have to consult my colleagues about whether that means it's FOIable or not. No. Okay. I'm informed it's not FOIable. I guess that answers that ques-
[ Page 1040 ]
tion.

Moving on to the privacy issues. On June 26, 2013, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner released a report that assessed privacy concerns arising from three disclosures of personal information. The Health Minister released a statement in response to the Privacy Commissioner's report in which he accepted and committed to implementing all of the commissioner's 11 recommendations.

Can the minister please provide an update of the status of follow-up on the recommendations?

Hon. T. Lake: I want to thank the Information and Privacy Commissioner for her report and for meeting with me and my staff to discuss the report and discuss the progress that we have made on the recommendations, some of which had already been underway, as we had already done a review with an external agency as well. As the Privacy Commissioner acknowledged, many of the recommendations in the Deloitte report mirrored the recommendations of her report.

I can tell you that of the 11 recommendations, we accepted all of them. Many are underway. I can provide the member, if she would prefer, with a description of the steps taken to date, in written form, rather than sort of reading through all of them. But I would be happy to do that if that's acceptable to the member.

J. Darcy: Yes. Thank you, Minister. That would be wonderful. That would enable us to stay within our timelines for the day.

I had another question. The minister indicated that the ministry's investigation into privacy breaches may be completed by the end of the summer. Can he please provide a status update on that? And what have been the costs of the investigation?

[1845]

Hon. T. Lake: I think the member is alluding to the real challenge of access to data that is necessary, particularly for research. We recognize that, which is why we've tried to address this as quickly as possible while still having a rigorous investigation.

In May of this past year the investigation unit started phase 2 of the work, focusing on researchers and contractors and their data management and contracting practices. Contractors and researchers have been identified as part of the phase 2 review.

Letters are being sent to the first group of contractors that have been reviewed to ensure that data management practices are appropriately in place, and they will confirm that in writing. Once that is completed, they will then be able to apply for future ministry data. Some of the contractors that have not had the ability to access information…. Once we complete that part, which will be very soon, they'll have further access.

We will be engaging in discussions with a smaller group of researchers to discuss concerns identified relating to data access. Starting this fall, contractors and researchers will be required to participate in a mandatory on-line training session, which focuses on information management security and privacy. A compliance audit program also is being implemented to monitor data access practices.

We hope that taking those steps will allow the flow of data to resume. We understand how important that is. Because the investigation is ongoing, I'm restricted in my comments to those that I have made to date.

J. Darcy: Thank you to the minister for his answer. It's a subject I'm sure we will be returning to on future occasions.

A couple of questions about the B.C. Services Card, which you referred to earlier, that was implemented in February. The government was warned by the Privacy Commissioner on February 8 that public consultation was required, yet the government pressed ahead with the implementation of the new B.C. Services Card starting February 15.

Now, six months after the system started rolling out, the government has announced a public consultation. Why is the government now listening to the advice of the Privacy Commissioner, who raised those concerns six months ago?

Hon. T. Lake: The Privacy Commissioner said to government: "If you're going to use this B.C. Services Card for a use other than health care…."

[1850]

I'll remind the member that this replaces the old health care card that we all used to carry, or sometimes lose. In fact, it was discovered that there were some nine million of those out there for 4½ million British Columbians. Certainly, the potential for fraud on the health care system was there. That was one of the reasons that we wanted to go to a new services card.

The commissioner said that if you are going to use it other than for health care, then the public should be consulted. At this moment it is only being used for health care. The Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services is leading the public consultation. That will precede use of the card for other than health care purposes.

J. Darcy: In the interests of time…. We will return to that issue at another time, I'm sure.

I have one last question, and that has to do with the private clinics. Can the minister please provide an update on the ongoing Brian Day court case and whether, to his knowledge, there are any other private clinics in British Columbia that are in violation of the Canada Health Act? I got that question in just before the Speaker
[ Page 1041 ]
came back.

Hon. T. Lake: An audit conducted by the Medical Services Commission found evidence that Cambie Surgeries Corp. and the Specialist Referral Clinic charged patients in relation to services that are benefits under the Medical Services Plan at two Vancouver clinics, the Cambie Surgery Centre and the Specialist Referral Clinic. As that matter is currently before the courts, I am restricted as to what I can say about that.

J. Darcy: There were two parts to the question. One was an update on the current case. The other was: to the minister's knowledge, are there any other clinics in the province that are in violation of the Canada Health Act?

Hon. T. Lake: Noting the hour…. Not noting the hour, because who cares; we're just going to continue on.

These are the only two that are active files with the ministry. Whereas there may be some concerns that have been relayed to the ministry in connection with other clinics, these are the only two active files that I am aware of that the Medical Services Commission is currently working on.

J. Darcy: I wish to rise, report progress and request that we meet again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:54 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

[1855]

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

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

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

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House at its rising stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:57 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:35 p.m.

On Vote 32: Attorney General operations, $368,402,000 (continued).

Hon. S. Anton: I have just a very quick introduction of people, if I might, Mr. Chair. I have Richard Fyfe, Deputy Attorney General; Lori Wanamaker, Deputy Solicitor General; Toby Louie from corporate planning; Tara Faganello, assistant deputy minister and executive financial officer; and David Hoadley, chief financial officer, with me. I look forward to answering questions from the hon. members.

L. Krog: I noted in our discussions on Monday that the minister talked about a number of new programs: mediation, family justice, justice access centres — the new one in Victoria — etc. Obviously these things require money. I'm just wondering if the minister can explain what the source would be of the funds to manage this change in service and, indeed, the justice access centre in Victoria. Where is the funding going to come from?

Hon. S. Anton: The justice access centre in Victoria will be a most innovative centre. It is a partnership between our Ministry of Justice and the University of Victoria. The University of Victoria is, in turn, receiving assistance from the Law Foundation. It's about two-thirds from government and about one-third from UVic.

The capital expenditure will be about $1.6 million in terms of the renovation. As I said, about two-thirds of that will be ours. The funding for that comes from shared services in government. It will be an interesting centre because of the different partnerships. UVic will be using it with their law students as part of the overall package of assistance to people who come into the centre, to help them with their legal issues.

[1440]

L. Krog: Just to be clear, I need to understand: is there new money coming into the budget for this, including the mediation and family justice services that I have asked about, or is this a shifting and reallocation of funds within the ministry? If so, what other areas of the min-
[ Page 1042 ]
istry are going to suffer as a result of this reallocation?

Hon. S. Anton: The funding is a reallocation. There will be three staff going in, in phase 1 to the justice access centre. Those three staff are new people. What it is, is it's an accumulation of vacancies and vacant positions from family mediation centres around the province. They're unfilled positions which will be filled in this new justice access centre.

L. Krog: With respect to full-time-equivalents within the ministry, I want to know what they are and how many vacant positions there are. In other words, is the ministry managing to survive on the budget — which is modest, to say the least — simply because there are a number of unfilled positions within the ministry?

Hon. S. Anton: The full-time-equivalents in the B.C. public service are projected to decrease as a result of employee attrition and hiring restrictions announced in September last year. This reflects the expectation of government to continue to prioritize key services and programs while achieving savings and improved effectiveness in service delivery. How that translates in Justice is that we are keeping our front-line positions filled, and any of our vacancies are more back-office positions.

We don't actually track full-time-equivalents anymore. We track the budget and we track the budget line, which is for salaries.

[1445]

L. Krog: Well, it's an interesting proposition. It's rather like a farmer not keeping track of the sheep in the field. Is the minister honestly telling me that the ministry doesn't keep track of how many employees it has? If so, what's the logic and purpose behind that?

I would have thought the basics of government are that you'd know how many employees you had or full-time-equivalents — that it wasn't just a question of salary. The services they deliver, which are delivered by individuals, are obviously important. They wouldn't have been established in the first place if they weren't important. Can the minister explain the rationale for that rather interesting proposition?

Hon. S. Anton: There is, in fact, no plan to return to detailed FTE reporting within budget documents. I have accountability to balance my budget to the bottom-line dollar figure. The number of FTEs that can be accommodated within my budget depends on many factors, including the staff mix throughout the year.

Let me repeat again that what we track is the amount paid out, not how many people to whom it is paid.

L. Krog: Well, I'm appreciative of the fact that I don't have a lot of time today, so I'm not going to flog that one.

Let me put what seems to be a problem in the community to the minister. I'm thinking of places like the Victoria Women's Transition House and Haven House, Nanaimo. These agencies provide contracted services to the Ministry of Justice, as I understand it.

The minister may be aware that the Community Social Services Employers Association represents them at the bargaining table. The government agreed, it would appear, to provide additional funds for such organizations, which means there are going to be increased costs for these organizations. Is there a budgetary provision for that increase for organizations like the Victoria Women's Transition House or Haven House?

[1450]

Hon. S. Anton: The ministry is very appreciative of the hard work done by agencies such as those mentioned by the hon. member and the many agencies who work to provide services and are funded, in part, through our ministry.

There has been a negotiated raise for the staff at these agencies that the hon. member has mentioned, and our other agencies, of 1.5 percent as of April 1 of this year and 1.5 percent as of January 1 next year. This is a cooperative gains increase, which means that we are looking for the agencies to find savings within their operations, efficiencies within their operations.

My staff is very committed to working one-on-one, if needed, with agencies in order to help them find the space so that they can pay these raises to their staff. In fact, this is a very active file at the moment. There is a meeting this week between the deputy ministers and the employers organizations, because this is not an issue only for this ministry, but it's an issue across a number of ministries.

L. Krog: What I take from the minister's answer is that there isn't money forthcoming from this year's budget to compensate these agencies for these negotiated increases, which they were essentially encouraged to sign on to and did in good faith. In fact, what the minister is telling me today is that staff from her ministry will be hard-pressed to find the time, I'm sure, to assist, because there seem to be fewer of them, and we're not keeping track of them as full-time-equivalents.

Staff from her ministry will be out there in the field trying to find out how these agencies — which are already bare-bones operations and are delivering very important services, considering the government's emphasis on domestic violence — are going to find the money within stretched budgets themselves to pay for this increase, which, as I say, was entered into with the government agreeing, from their perspective, to provide the additional funds.

The question really is this. Is the minister saying there are no additional funds, there are some additional funds,
[ Page 1043 ]
or these agencies are expected to find the efficiencies within their own existing budgets to meet this agreed to and accepted increase?

Hon. S. Anton: The savings for these wage increases, which I mentioned a moment ago, under the cooperative gains mandate, will be found within existing budgets with no reduction to services. The funding agencies will be working closely with the contracted agencies across the sector to identify opportunities to achieve efficiencies in providing services while ensuring no reduction to services.

I think I did mention that there would be a meeting with the employer agencies this week. I would just like to emphasize what I said a moment ago, which is that my staff is very committed to working with these agencies to help them on this cooperative gains approach so that they can pay the increases in salaries as noted.

L. Krog: I take it from that answer that, essentially, these agencies are going to have to find the money themselves. If I'm incorrect, I'm sure the minister will take the opportunity on the record to correct me.

[1455]

Turning to the revised service plan for 2013-14–2015-16, the minister's message talks about: "We have committed to working with the Legal Services Society to expand its criminal and family legal aid services as resources become available." It goes on to talk about exploring opportunities with the judiciary, etc.

What I'm really asking is: what exactly does the minister mean by the phrase "we've committed to working with Legal Services"? Is there any new money? Has there been a committee established? Is there some effort being made? Are there consultations being undertaken? In other words, is there a real possibility that the Legal Services Society, which has still never recovered from the remarkable funding cuts that were imposed on it when this government came to power…? Is there any real possibility of getting a significant enough increase that they'll actually be able to deliver some of the services that they had to cut many years ago?

Hon. S. Anton: The Legal Services Society, of course, provides an extremely important service to British Columbians, which is why my ministry works so closely with them in order to assist, or to constantly be their partner, really, in the delivery of these services.

The budget for Legal Services has gone up steadily in the last few years — 69.2 in 2010-11; 69.7 in '11-12; 72.3, '12-13; and 72.5 this year, '13-14. As well, in my mandate letter I am directed that we will find an additional $2 million for Legal Services in the next fiscal year.

L. Krog: With those moneys, is it contemplated exactly what's going to happen with the $2 million increase? The minister herself will acknowledge, if the staff provides the figures to her, that we're still roughly — what? — $20 million below the budget in 2001.

Hon. S. Anton: My mandate letter requires me to work with the Legal Services Society to expand criminal and family legal aid services in advance of the $2 million budget increase provided in 2014 and 2015. This $2 million is obviously of great interest to us and to Legal Services, but the work as to how it will be spent and how it will be used has not yet been done. It will be an active discussion over the next time until we get the money in our budget and are able to spend it.

[1500]

L. Krog: With respect to justice reform in the broadest sense — amongst the other things, the transparency act, etc. — the council is going to be collecting, using and publishing data, which could include performance targets, etc. I'm wondering: has the public safety council…? Where are we at in terms of its operation? What budget, if any, has been set aside for it, and what is expected to happen within the coming fiscal year?

Hon. S. Anton: The public safety council was established pursuant to the Justice Reform and Transparency Act. I think that we're looking at certain key members of it right here in this room — namely, my two deputy ministers, Richard Fyfe and Lori Wanamaker. One of the early actions coming out of this was to have a justice summit, which I gather the hon. member attended.

The goal of the justice summit and activities around it is to work with all of the partners and stakeholders in justice in British Columbia to find efficiencies, to find better ways to deliver timely and accessible justice in our province.

As to what the budget is, this is an easy one. The budget is zero. This is done through existing resources and existing personnel.

L. Krog: The council is to collect and publish data. I'm just wondering: are the computer systems, the technology, in place to allow the compilation of that information, or is a new system being contemplated? Will there be capital costs involved if there is a new system? In short, in a very practical way, assuming that statistics are important….

I know that some of the people sitting near to the minister, advising her, will remember me asking her predecessor's predecessor's predecessor — Mr. Oppal, back when he was Attorney General — about the keeping of statistics within the ministry. I don't recall, with great respect, that I got the most fulsome answers in that regard.

I'm just wondering now if, in fact, we have the technology and the people, given the minister's earlier comments about employees working in the background as opposed to front-line services…. Will we have the people,
[ Page 1044 ]
in fact, to be able to accomplish the compilation of the data which will be necessary to guide the minister?

[1505]

Hon. S. Anton: I think there are two answers to this question. First of all, we do have a number of information systems which give very granular information, detailed information, to help in delivery of justice in British Columbia — for example, JUSTIN and CORNET. There are a number of systems which track cases, track crime, track work that we're doing.

Through justice reform, we are seeking to improve our business intelligence. Although it is too early to define what these systems might be, it is likely that we will be going forward to seek capital to improve our business intelligence systems. We will need, in each case, to put together the business case for doing that.

As I said, that's thinking that's underway right now. I'm just anticipating that it will come up over the next few months. I don't have a specific case to give to the hon. member right at the moment.

L. Krog: I take it from the minister's answer that, essentially, we are still very much in the preliminary stages of the implementation of the Cowper report — certainly on this aspect. The legislation has been passed. The minister has indicated that the key people are already around her and it will be accomplished in the ministry's existing budget. As I offer a compliment to her staff, I'm sure they're already overworked in the ministry. Adding this to their already full days will no doubt, notwithstanding their herculean efforts, provide perhaps some reason for delay in implementing all of the reforms that one would hope for in our justice system.

Again looking at the time, I'm going to, then, move on to talk about court backlogs and the number of judicial appointments. In the minister's own message she talks about the appointment of 18 provincial court judges since February 2012. I'm just wondering if she can confirm that, in fact, we're still below the judicial complement in 2005.

Is the minister satisfied that, in fact, the courts can deal with the existing backlogs without the addition of new courts and the judges necessary? My understanding is that we're looking at about $1.4 million, $1.5 million for every provincial court judge to keep them operating during the course of the year. I'd be interested to hear the minister's comments.

[1510]

Hon. S. Anton: We did indeed appoint 18 judges in 2012. I will confirm the number that the hon. member used, which is about $1.4 million per judge. That's excluding capital. If you had to increase the size of your building, that number would go up. As long as people can go into existing facilities, that's the cost.

Of the 18 that were appointed in 2012, there were two that were appointed early, so to speak, so that we actually got an extra judge-year, I think you might call it. That extra year of judicial time was used to help reduce backlogs in the courts, because, of course, nobody likes to see cases stayed due to lack of court time.

We are in, I think it's safe to say, a very amicable relationship with the chief judge in terms of the judicial complement, in rather frequent discussions on the subject. But to the complement, where we are right now is at about 129 Provincial Court judges.

L. Krog: With respect to the issue of judicial stays, one of the concerns that has been raised to me by members of the public is the suggestion that, in fact, plea bargains were entered into in a number of cases in order to help reduce the judicial backlog, or the backlog of cases that were building up.

I'm just wondering: did the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General or any others in the ministry…? Was there any policy change with respect to the question of plea bargains that would have been made during the course of the last year by the government with respect to criminal cases in order to reduce that significant backlog?

Hon. S. Anton: I referred to judicial stays, so on that, I'll just give the stats for the last couple of years. In 2011 there were 137. In 2012 there were 76. So far in 2013 there have been 24.

The Attorney General — myself and my predecessor…. There is no policy change regarding pleas. In fact, any direction like that, I think, would become a public direction. It is, of course, entirely in Crown counsel's purview as to what the appropriate disposition for cases is. But it is not an area where I have given any direction, nor has my predecessor.

L. Krog: With respect to the small claims side of Provincial Court, Mediate B.C. provided me with some statistics related to mediation. That is certainly a process that has kept cases from getting into the courtroom.

[1515]

As the minister knows, in a small claims action, you are required to go to either mediation or a judicial case conference along the way. The mediation is extremely cost-effective, if I may use that phrase, in comparison to having judges deal with these matters. There is some suggestion that, in fact, there will be cuts in that area.

I would like to ask the minister if she can advise whether there'll be any cuts to the mediation side of Provincial Court, small claims division, or whether, in fact, that will be increased, because the success of it seems to be readily apparent. One would hope that keeping cases out of the courtroom and thereby also reducing the potential need for the appointment of further judges would also
[ Page 1045 ]
be ameliorated.

Hon. S. Anton: I'll start off with a rather interesting statistic, which is that in the 1998 and 1999 year there were about 29,000 small claims cases, and in this past year there were under 15,000. So they've declined by almost half.

I will readily agree that mediation is extremely important in these cases. We are working with Mediate B.C. very closely in development of the civil resolution tribunal, which, hon. Chair, you will know is the on-line tribunal so that people can resolve small claims issues 24-7 when it's up and running. Mediation is a key part of the civil resolution tribunal, and Mediate B.C. is helping us in the development of the civil resolution tribunal.

As to the question around funding, there has been no change in the overall funding for Mediate B.C.

L. Krog: I take it from the minister's response that there won't be a reduction in the number of mediators available to actually mediate small claims cases. Is some of that money going to shift into the civil resolutions tribunal in anticipation that that will take cases out of small claims court, which is just, you know, doing it under a different name? Or is it expected that that shift of funding will deal with new cases, such as the strata claims, etc.?

[1520]

In other words, is the end result going to potentially be that we won't have the mediators available to do the mediation work in a timely way that has proved so successful?

Hon. S. Anton: We are, in the course of development of the civil resolution tribunal, looking for innovative ways to deliver justice services, and of course, that does, in this instance, involve the mediation, the mediators.

We are working closely with Mediate B.C. in the development of the civil resolution tribunal. There will still be mediators. Their services may be used in a different way. The civil resolution tribunal may be different forms of mediation, may be different times of the day, may be different media, but the mediators will still be used. It is simply the innovation and delivery of justice which is under discussion.

As I think I've said a few times, I think there is a really innovative and cutting-edge discussion which is going on in the ministry right now and amongst our partners, and it's something that…. We're really leading the way in this country with the work that's going on.

L. Krog: The minister's predecessor received a letter last year, after the budget was passed, from West Coast LEAF, with respect to the subject of their report Troubling Assessments: Custody and Access Reports and their Equality Implications for B.C. Women. In that letter they summarized the findings of their report and made some key recommendations.

No. 1 was to implement standardized training for assessors, "with particular emphasis on the dynamics of family violence and cultural sensitivity." No. 2 was to create binding directives for assessors "to ensure unbiased, fair and accurate assessments for all families, including women experiencing violence and non-English-speaking mothers." No. 4 is fairly obvious: "Increase resources for legal aid and family justice counsellors to ensure equal access to timely and well-reasoned reports for all." And 5: "Amend section 211 of the Family Law Act by directing assessors to consider violence within the relationship when assessing parenting ability. This would bring it into line with the rest of the new act's welcome emphasis on family violence."

I'm just wondering if the minister has any comments on those. I appreciate that we could talk a great deal about increasing funding for legal aid today, and it's not going to happen, unfortunately. But I'm wondering, with respect to the other three recommendations — implementing standardized training, etc., creating binding directives for assessors and amending section 211 of the Family Law Act — whether those are under consideration.

[1525]

Hon. S. Anton: As the hon. member will know, there are two main sets of family justice mediators: the ones in the public sector and the ones in the private sector. The public sector counsellors who are employees of my ministry were recognized in that report generally as doing a pretty good job.

But I would like to say that that report itself was taken very seriously in our ministry. The recommendations were taken seriously insofar as we have dealings with the private mediators. Those recommendations were considered insofar as we can influence that broader community.

Around section 211 — yes, we are considering an amendment of that section as recommended in the report.

L. Krog: With respect to the judiciary in general, there have been concerns expressed from various sources from time to time about the composition of the judiciary — that it doesn't reflect, if you will, the face of British Columbia, whether that be based on gender, ethnic status or ethnic origin, etc. I'm wondering if that is an issue of concern to the Minister of Justice and whether she will be considering any changes with respect to the appointment policy by government, by her office, of future appointees to the Provincial Court bench.

Hon. S. Anton: The judges who are appointed do indeed need to reflect the face of British Columbia. There are many factors in their appointment — who applies,
[ Page 1046 ]
where they apply from, where they're willing to serve and so on. I would like to reassure the hon. member that diversity is important, not just because it's diversity but because people bring different views, different opinions, different thoughts, different experiences to the bench with them, and that gives us a better bench in British Columbia.

L. Krog: If we can take a few minutes to talk about legal aid. I have — well, to paraphrase the words of the Minister of Innovation from question period the other day — beaten this horse for a long time and probably flayed it till it's got no flesh left.

[1530]

Nevertheless, you can never give up on a service that is so significant and so important for vulnerable British Columbians. As I already pointed out to the minister today, we still aren't back to the funding level that existed in 2001 of $96 million. We're at about $72.5 million now. We've had population growth in that time. We've had all sorts of significant changes which would place pressure on it.

One of the things that is troubling about the white paper is that the need for poverty law legal aid doesn't appear, in my view, to be mentioned at all. Although the paper talks about, "Government intends to support LSS to expand family legal aid services it…provides," I'm just wondering: what is the minister's position with respect to poverty law?

Specifically, I'm referring to what used to be delivered by community law offices, again, which I've raised year after year: assistance with appeals with the ministry for social assistance, residential tenancy matters, EI appeals — all those things that have enormous impact on people who are already living way below the concept of paycheque to paycheque.

I'm just wondering: is the minister considering that aspect of our justice system, which is sadly lacking, and can she explain why it hasn't been addressed in the white paper?

Hon. S. Anton: The Legal Services Society does indirectly serve the people to whom the hon. member is referring through its public legal education initiatives. The Law Foundation does provide funding for poverty law and other initiatives around British Columbia.

I would like to point out as well that in this ministry we spend — this is apart from the funding for Legal Services Society — $30 million on access-to-justice services. Now, that includes the family mediation at Family Justice Centres, but it also includes the justice access centres. When persons go into the justice access centres, they can ask for help on any number of matters which are important to them, and they will get that help in those centres.

L. Krog: I appreciate the minister's comments. But you know, the Doust report entitled Foundation for Change, the Law Society, the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association have all pointed out repeatedly that notwithstanding what the minister says, people are not getting the kinds of services, the most vulnerable amongst us…. In terms of legal education, of course, dependant on your abilities…. If you're not computer literate, if you don't have access to that kind of thing, if you can't even afford to get near a telephone, you're not going to have access to some of the services that have been placed in substitution for services that used to be delivered by real live people who had some human understanding of the enormous difficulties that the individual sitting in front of them would suffer.

[1535]

So I'm going to make the plea on the record once again: it is time, after 12 years in office, that this government finally recognize that justice shouldn't be only available to those who can afford it.

The reality is in British Columbia that the poor, in terms of access to justice, are today way worse off than they were 12 years ago. It's not getting any better. The minister, essentially, has what I will call a frozen budget, and legal services continues to struggle along. I am hopeful that the appointment of a new minister will mean that in fact they will see some greater emphasis and interest.

It's all well and good to talk about balancing budgets, but when in my own community I see an expanded new Mercedes-Benz dealership and I see the same people on the streets of Nanaimo who can't afford legal services, who don't have a community law office to go to, I must say that that tends to move me on a human level, as I would hope it would politically and on a human level move the minister.

It's not sufficient that after having cut legal services in a way like no other province in Canada at the time, we still don't see the standard of delivery of services to those most vulnerable.

My friend the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant I'm sure would have a great deal to say about this today if I gave her the opportunity to do so, dealing with the poorest neighbourhood in the province.

Having said that, I want to move on very, very quickly to community courts. When do we finally expect a report and final evaluation of the community courts? It has been delayed. It obviously was seen as a beacon of hope in the legal community by this government. We still have only got one and no report. When is the report coming?

Hon. S. Anton: The report will be coming, actually, fairly soon, early in the fall, and we expect to make it public later on in the fall.

L. Krog: I appreciate that answer. In light of what the minister has had to say about her budget, I'm just wondering…. Let's assume for a moment that this report
[ Page 1047 ]
indicates that this provides significant overall savings to government. I'm thinking particularly of ministries that deal with helping people. We're not talking, obviously, about the dirt ministries. Let's assume that the report does that. Is there any provision in this year's budget to allow for the expansion or creation of another community court?

[1540]

Hon. S. Anton: There is no expansion in the budget at the moment. However, in the optimistic frame in which the question was put, if there are indeed savings to government through the community court, we would then develop the business case and go forward in future years to expand the community courts elsewhere — if indeed the case was made that there are savings to government.

L. Krog: Part of the Cowper recommendations on justice reform is to keep better statistics information, etc. I'm just wondering if the minister is in a position to tell us today, for instance, how many of the cases in Provincial Court criminal division are essentially what I will call health issues. They're not serious cases of criminality in the sense of, you know, a murderer or a serial bank robber. The issue is drug addiction and/or mental illness. Are those statistics kept? If not, is the intention to start to use them?

The minister can see where I'm going with this. The courts continue — based on various studies and comments from those most familiar with the system, far more so than me — to consistently say that our court system is dealing with people whose problems are not criminal in nature. Moreover, because of the nature of their problems, be it an addiction issue or a mental health issue, in fact they are responsible for a significant portion, according to the ministry's own information, of the new cases, which are breach charges.

George — a terrible name to pick on the announcement of the birth of the royal child, I suppose — who has a serious addiction problem, in fact is told a condition of his release is to stay away from drugs. Well, George goes out and takes drugs and gets charged with a breach, and then we're back in court, and the whole process rolls again. The police forces of the province, the VPD in particular, are dealing with the significant number of drug-related charges they have to. It carries on and on and on.

My point is this. Are those statistics being kept? Is there any costing done by the ministry that would enable the Attorney General to go to cabinet and say: "Look, this is the 21st century. We've had had this kind of information building for a long time. Here are the statistics. We've kept them. We're developing them. For heaven's sakes, let's take the sensible approach finally and accept that our courts are clogged, in many cases, with a number of people whose problems are not really related to crime"?

Hon. S. Anton: The hon. member distracted me for a moment there with the announcement of the name of the royal baby. I've been so focused on business today that I didn't know we have a new little Prince George.

[1545]

There's no question that many cases which come into the criminal justice system do relate to addiction and mental health. We don't really track those coming in, because you don't always know as a person comes in if they do have issues such as addiction or mental health. Once they get into the system — if they're in corrections, if they're in a corrections facility — yes, indeed, we do know that. As they come into the system, police guess. People guess. It's not known, and there are no statistics which are tracked.

L. Krog: Is the minister satisfied that once they're in the system, and they're obviously going to be there for a while, that, in fact, we are retaining sufficient statistics to determine how many are involved in the system? Chances are you're coming in, in your first appearance, at some point. Most cases don't get dismissed at the first appearance, obviously. These are people who will remain within the system.

Are there statistics being kept that would indicate whether a substantial part or a reasonable part of the problem is, in fact, related to a mental illness and/or an addiction? It strikes me that those numbers and that information is the very basis for trying to persuade governments in general, let alone this government in particular, that the money that is being spent in so many other ways, in fact, would be better spent dealing with the problem in a serious way and preventing further cost for this particular ministry.

Hon. S. Anton: The topic that the member is discussing is obviously of interest to this ministry and to other ministries. It was a topic of, I gather, significant interest at the first justice summit. The statistic that I have today is that over half, about 56 percent, of persons who are in custody or who are on some form of community supervision do have a mental health or an addiction issue.

L. Krog: I'm just wondering. The minister has staff here to discuss the issue of Bountiful, I trust, and missing persons, the Missing Women Inquiry.

If I may just have a couple of questions on Bountiful. The report from the RCMP has finally been delivered, I gather, to Mr. Wilson, the special prosecutor.

I don't want to give the media too much — how shall I say? — by way of a compliment, but I rather like the language of Mr. Mulgrew in an article, when he said: "It's been a generation since the first alarms went up about child abuse in an archaic Mormon polygamy commune in southeastern B.C. Think about that — a generation. That's a Biblical time period."
[ Page 1048 ]

The concern I have — not only in my own role in this Legislature, but on behalf of the many British Columbians who have followed the Bountiful story for many years — is that it's been announced that Mr. Wilson is expected to spend several months reviewing material before deciding if charges are warranted.

[1550]

We know that in the United States there have been successful prosecutions. We know that evidence has been available there, which is probably no different than the evidence that's available here.

My real concern is not just with the crimes that, potentially, may have already been committed — that will be determined by Mr. Wilson, I'm sure — but the issue or the potentiality of ongoing abuse, particularly of young women and young men.

My question is to the minister. Is it within her authority? Is she prepared to publish a direction? Is there someone in her ministry who's in a position to encourage a speedy decision on this?

The RCMP have been slow enough, with great respect. I understand all of the difficulties, and I've heard them from several Attorneys General over the last few years, but there is a strong sense that there is something very wrong, and the issue of delay in our court system, when the RCMP take this long to investigate. Now we're told it's going to take several months to make a decision. Surely, this could be made a priority for Mr. Wilson so that the public could actually see justice being done.

I'm curious to know what the minister's position is, whether she, in fact, is in a position from a legal perspective to issue direction and whether she's satisfied with what's happened.

Hon. S. Anton: The matter is, indeed, in the hands of the special prosecutor, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that. We will wait and see what Mr. Wilson's decision is.

K. Corrigan: I would like to ask the minister a couple of questions about Bountiful as well. I have written the past ministers a few times. The last time I sent a letter asking questions about the progress and what is happening for the particularly young women and boys in Bountiful was April 20, 2012. It was January 18, 2012, that the announcement was made that Peter Wilson was appointed as a special prosecutor.

I certainly understand that we will not interfere in the processes of the prosecutor and whether or not charges will be laid. I understand that these are very complex legal issues.

However, we have, at the same time, a community which is in crisis and which has reported to us, through meetings that some of us have had with members of the community, a feeling that things are getting worse in Bountiful, and a feeling that "the danger is increasing." People are working very closely with some of these community members — both those that are still there, making some contact, but also those that have left.

My question for the minister is: given the reports that because of the separation of the two sides of Bountiful and how much more isolated and how much more dangerous it is, apparently, getting on one side, has the minister been…? Because the prosecutions are apparently going to take a long time, if they indeed happen, what else is this minister doing to coordinate with other ministries or to find other things?

I'll give you some examples of things that have been suggested by those that know a lot more about this community than I do: emergency networks; a phone help line; a safe house; more contact through the education system; more education; more contact with former FLDS — that's the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, because that's what we're talking about here; psychological counsellors.

Now, I know this is not necessarily part of this ministry's mandate, but victim services, working with people who are trying to get out…. What we are hearing is that even though young people or adults are getting out of Bountiful, they are left hanging. They have no resources. They have nothing there for them when they get out.

[1555]

I'm wondering what plan the minister has. If we cannot move at this point on criminal charges, what plan does the minister have, working with other ministers, to assist these people, who, apparently, are in more and more dangerous circumstances?

Hon. S. Anton: I thank the hon. member for the question. I think the answer to this question may lie with more than one ministry, and I would be pleased to take it up with the Minister of Children and Families. If the hon. member would like to suggest other ministries, I'd be glad to do that as well.

In this ministry, though, we do have victim services support workers in the community, and we have the VictimLINK phone number, which is a 24-7 phone number that people may call.

K. Corrigan: This is a very unique community with very unique challenges. I am no expert, but we have certainly talked to some people who are experts. My understanding is that at least part of this community could be likened, to some degree, to people that are being trafficked. In fact, a trafficking conviction has just happened.

Isolated; controlled; powerless; lacking money, so no means to get out; lacking communication; lacking ability to drive — all sorts of things that, in some ways, are similar to what would be described as somebody who is sexually exploited or a victim of trafficking.

I think it's absolutely incumbent upon the minister to be proactive and to do that work. Yes, I agree there
[ Page 1049 ]
are other ministers involved. But what this situation requires is for this government to be proactive and do that coordination work.

What I'm looking for is a commitment from the minister that the minister will work with the Minister of Children and Family Development and other ministries — and, I think, the Ministry of Education. I think there's some creative work that could be done to get into that community and to support and help this community through coordinated efforts. So I'm looking for a commitment from the minister that she will take the lead on that.

[1600]

Hon. S. Anton: There are complex issues and serious allegations, which I think have been discussed over the years in a number of forums and are being raised by the hon. member today. As Attorney General, I'm not sure that I will take the lead in this, but I am certainly prepared to talk to other ministries and see what kind of actions might be appropriate with the issues that the hon. member is raising.

K. Corrigan: I appreciate that. I think this is critically important, and I think time is marching on. If the reports we get — from those that are working with and know many of these individuals — are correct, we could be moving to a crisis point. I don't know if that's true, but that's certainly what we're hearing as a possibility.

I'm wondering if the minister could give me a commitment to report back on progress on that, say, within a month.

Hon. S. Anton: The commitment I will make is this: I will commit to talking to my colleagues in ministries affected, and I will commit to asking staff to have a look as well.

If there are things that should be reported publicly or need public discussion, we will do that. But I am extremely sensitive about the ongoing charge-approval process.

I appreciate what the member is saying — that they may be two separate things — and I think we just have to keep them separate and move forward accordingly. I think I've made the commitment that I will make, hon. Chair, and leave it at that.

K. Corrigan: I'm not suggesting in any way that there be reporting to members on this side of the House on what the progress is in the criminal investigations. I certainly appreciate the integrity of that process and the independence of that process, so I'm not looking for that.

I'm talking about the other possibilities. It's very clear from what Mr. Wilson has said publicly that it could, and will, be many, many months before the work is done that could lead to criminal charges. I don't believe that the people in this community can wait, and they don't deserve to wait.

On the issue of who takes the lead on this. Yes, there is the criminal justice branch. But in addition, there is community safety and crime prevention. There are security programs and victim services. They all fall within this ministry, so I think this ministry has an important role to play, and I hope that the minister will think about the other possibilities and where support could come from. Certainly, the Ministry of Social Development is another one where support could be found.

I will leave it at that, but I urge the government to act.

[1605]

We are going to move now. Maybe I'll give you a little outline of what we're going to be doing in the next while, reserving the right to maybe change, but I don't think we will.

What we're going to do is go to some questions about the Missing Women Inquiry, and after that, we're going to go to some questions. We're going to do some community safety questions. That will be with regard to victim services, domestic violence, office to combat trafficking in persons, safe communities and civil forfeiture — all of those areas. We'll do all of those ones together after we've done the Missing Women Inquiry. I'm not sure exactly what part of the ministry that falls under.

So we'll go to that, and it'll be my colleague that will be leading on that.

J. Kwan: It's been about eight months since the Oppal inquiry has been completed and recommendations made to the government. Since that time the recommendations have been slow in getting going, if you will. The government had appointed the hon. Steven Point to be the advocate to lead the recommendations and to work with the community around this — to be the "champion," I think, to use the word exactly from the report. Of course, since that time, Steven Point has resigned his position.

I'm wondering, first of all, if the minister can give us an update on what work is being done within the ministry or within government to enact the recommendations from the Missing Women Inquiry.

Hon. S. Anton: The inquiry into the missing and murdered women resulted in Commissioner Oppal making 63 recommendations, mainly to our ministry but also to other ministries and to other branches of government — such as, for example, the city of Vancouver. We are taking those 63 recommendations with utmost seriousness in our ministry insofar as they do apply to us and insofar as we can.

Some of them are hard to move forward on at the moment because they deal with the issue of compensation and there is a court case going on. Most of them, however, don't fall into that descriptor. Many of them deal with policing issues which we are able to move forward on. Some of the actions are actually done. Many of them are
[ Page 1050 ]
underway. On others, there is active planning for them. I can give the hon. member more details if she wishes.

J. Kwan: Actually, I do wish. The sense from the community and myself, as well, is that the recommendations are basically just sitting there on the shelf with the report and very little action has been taken in terms of the actual recommendations coming out of the inquiry.

I don't know if time will permit it today, but I would certainly appreciate a detailed response from the minister on what recommendations have been undertaken by the government and where they are at in terms of each of the recommendations.

[1610]

I would also appreciate knowing what resources have been allocated to implement these recommendations. For example, in the ministry of the Attorney General, from the budget that's been received by the ministry, how much money is being set aside to actually get the recommendations implemented? Are there staff working on this? How many staff are working on that? Who from staff is working on it? Who can the community contact as a staff person, as a go-to person, to say, "Where are we at?" and to keep this, shall we say, active on the file?

Hon. S. Anton: As I mentioned a moment ago, this is being taken with utmost seriousness by my ministry. To begin with, we will be doing a planning report on the recommendations so that they will be laid out. I think that this will be helpful information to the community.

I acknowledge what the hon. member says. There is intense interest in the recommendations and what's being done with them and how they're being acted upon. We will have a report available which will show what we're doing in this ministry with regard to the recommendations which apply to this ministry.

I have met with former Commissioner Oppal, and I will be meeting with former Lieutenant-Governor Point, who was our champion and who did a significant body of work meeting with families and engaging in reconciliation.

There have been a number of recommendations which have been acted upon. There are many in policing which, in fact, have been acted upon over the last ten years. I might start with the policing ones.

The themes running through the Oppal report in terms of policing were: an inadequate reaction to missing persons reports and inadequate sharing of information between police departments. I think it's safe to say that the police have acted on both of those. There is a missing persons unit now in Surrey, and the missing persons reports are taken much more seriously than, perhaps, they were at that time.

In terms of the sharing of information, we have now at least 20 regionalized police services funded to the tune of…. I'm going to say $70 million, and if I'm wrong, I'll be corrected on that in a moment. I'm getting the nod — $70 million in funding for regionalized police services around the province. Not every unit is all around the province, but there are various forms of regionalization, which, as I said, was a major theme in the Oppal report.

Those are advances in policing. That is not that police are standing still. There are many more things in the report that they're acting on. But those are things that have been done up till now, and I look forward to being able to report out on many of the other things. I will be reporting out on many of the other things which the police are actively working on and will be working on in the future.

J. Kwan: Some of the items that the minister is referencing were something that the policing authorities themselves are undertaking. Whether or not that's under the direction of the ministry…. I'm not clear. Is the minister suggesting that what the police are doing is actually work that she is directing them to do as a result of the Missing Women Inquiry?

Second, on this report that she's talking about that will be released, in giving us an update on where things are at with the recommendations, what's the timeline for that?

Finally, I'd like to just ask the question again on the question of resources from the minister's budget. What is being allocated to actually get this work done, to get the recommendations done, from this budget?

[1615]

Hon. S. Anton: On the policing question, this is both from their own volition — the police — and also, the police of course do fall under the general direction of this ministry. There are police standards being set as a result of the Missing Women recommendations, and other of the recommendations are being acted upon.

In terms of resources, this is being done with existing resources and reallocation of resources. In terms of the timeline for the report, probably October. But I would like to emphasize that that does not mean that work is standing still. That simply means that that's when the report will be available, but the work is ongoing and active.

J. Kwan: The report that will be coming out in October — would that include also the work that Steven Point has achieved to date as well?

Then, is it going to outline how the government is going to move forward on the 63 recommendations arising out of the inquiry?

Hon. S. Anton: The report is our report on the recommendations, so it will go through all of them. Now, as I said, some of them are not, in fact, ours. Some of them belong to other people. Some of them are things that are done, some of them things that are underway, and some of them things for the future. That's what the nature of the report will be.
[ Page 1051 ]

Will it reference Steven Point? Of course it will, because that's a piece of work which has already been done as a direct result and a direct response to one of the recommendations in the report.

J. Kwan: This report will be made public, I assume. Well, maybe I'd better get that answer.

Hon. S. Anton: Yes.

J. Kwan: In terms of the budget, the minister says, "the existing budget." So that would be staff who are working on it. Is there a specific allocation of dollars to implement a recommendation?

Take, as an example, one of the recommendations which the community was actually quite shocked to not see the government act on. That would be, given the vulnerability to violence for the people who need transportation on the Highway of Tears — which was the second immediate measure recommended by the commissioner — "to develop and implement an enhanced public transit system to provide a safer travel option connecting the northern communities, particularly along Highway 16," known as the Highway of Tears. This has not been implemented.

My question is: are there resources — actual dollars — that are set aside from the budget that would actually allow for and facilitate the implementation of recommendations that came out of the Oppal inquiry?

[1620]

Hon. S. Anton: In terms of our own resources, in this ministry we are realigning and reallocating resources within our ministry to take forward the recommendations, to work on the recommendations as we can.

In terms of the recommendation as to transportation on Highway 16, this has gone to the Ministry of Transportation. They are initiating discussions with municipalities to identify considerations and solutions for travellers along Highway 16, the Highway of Tears. They are working on an inventory of past public transit studies and services currently available. They are working on this. It would be nice to be able to say that this could be done overnight, but it's a complicated question. There is not a straightforward solution to it.

J. Kwan: Actually, it's not really, exactly, overnight. I think the community has called for this for about six years, to my recollection — so not exactly overnight, albeit identified as a high priority in the Missing Women Inquiry.

I just want to go back for my own clarity, because I didn't understand what the minister was saying when she said that resources will be reallocated within her own ministry. Can the minister give me a dollar figure? I actually don't understand her answer in practical terms. What does that mean in reality when we're talking about implementing recommendations and you need, actually, money to support projects for it to be done? How much would that be? I don't know. Maybe the minister can clarify that for me.

Hon. S. Anton: Let me give an example. Mr. Pecknold, who is here, is director of police services. Part of his role is to set police standards. The Missing Women Inquiry recommendations suggest police standards. Mr. Pecknold is taking those recommendations and developing standards around them. He is doing that within his existing resources. There is no number to put to it. That's the work that he does. That's the work that he is doing in direct response to the recommendations of the Missing Women Inquiry.

J. Kwan: Okay. I guess I have to wait and see this report when it comes out in November — exactly how the implementation of the recommendations will go forward.

Like so many things that happen in government, things cross over to different ministries, like this one on the recommendations arising from the Missing Women Inquiry. Some of those recommendations the minister has identified perhaps cross over to Transportation and other ministries and so on.

Who is going to be the lead person in driving this? That would be the go-to person that people can go to and ask questions about and get progress on it, instead of trying to find one person over here, another person over there and running around all over the place trying to sort that out. Is there an identified person that will take the lead on this? I'm assuming that is the Attorney General, seeing as the Attorney General was the person who released the report, who appointed the commissioner and so on and so forth. Is that the lead person?

Within the Attorney General's ministry, who is the staff person that people can contact to get regular updates or have inquiries or questions that could be put to the individual and get answers?

Aside from that question, I also have a couple of others, because I'm told this is my last go at the questions. So I want to throw them all in.

The minister, I think, would have received a letter dated July 10, 2013, from community groups. This is a coalition of organizations who've written to the minister. They have actually written a very detailed letter. It is actually five pages long, detailing the history of the inquiry and some of the issues that the community had identified and then, of course, the recommendations and so on.

I'm wondering. From that letter, one of the requests is for the group to meet with the minister. They have yet to receive a response from the minister on this.

[1625]

Could I get confirmation from the minister today that, in fact, she will meet with this coalition of organizations
[ Page 1052 ]
who have been very instrumental in calling for the inquiry at a time when nobody would pay any attention to them and fought pretty well…. I won't say those words, because it's unparliamentary and describes them, I think, in a very inappropriate manner.

Nonetheless, they persisted and called for the inquiry and successfully have gotten the inquiry. Then they were cut out from the process because they didn't have legal representation to be at the process. Even with that, they continued to advocate and believe in getting justice not only for the family members and the women who went missing and who were murdered but also for women who are still at risk today.

I really hope that the minister will take the time to meet with them, because I think they have a lot to offer, a lot of information. I think if we work together, we can actually do something and really, I think, pay tribute to the family members and the women who were so horribly harmed in this process.

Hon. S. Anton: The lead person insofar as the recommendations relate to Justice will be me, as minister, and my staff. The lead person with the city of Vancouver will be the city of Vancouver. The lead person if there are other agencies will be those other agencies.

Will I meet with Grand Chief Stewart Phillip? I did appreciate his letter. I appreciated his interest in working together, and I will — it hasn't been set up — indeed be responding to his request for a meeting. I do hope that we have a meeting.

K. Corrigan: I'm just going to ask one question in this area as well, and then we're going to move on to victim services. Two recommendations, 4.1 and 6.3, have to do with equality-promoting measures and measures to prevent violence against aboriginal and rural women.

My question to the minister is…. I know we're going to get a report, but very specifically recommendation 4.1: "That the Minister of Justice direct the director of police services to undertake equality audits of police forces in British Columbia with a focus on police duty to protect marginalized and aboriginal women from violence. These audits should be carried out by an external agency and with meaningful community involvement."

Recommendation 6.3 by Commissioner Oppal was: "That provincial government provide additional funding to aboriginal women's organizations to create programs addressing violence on reserves so that fewer women and youth are forced to escape to urban areas."

I'm wondering: what progress has been made or is contemplated in this area?

Hon. S. Anton: On item 4.1, the police have already publicly committed to doing this. The action item is that "the Ministry of Justice will conduct a study to examine the practices and policies of police agencies in British Columbia relating to ensuring bias-free policing and will, where required, ensure that audits are completed related to bias-free policing and the equitable treatment of all persons." That work is underway.

On the funding of the aboriginal women's organizations, that's one that is under discussion and under some thinking. There is some question of jurisdiction. I'm not able to answer that one in terms of a reply at the moment. But as with all of these, there will be…. Some of them can be done, as I mentioned, right away; some are into the future; some are not actually within the purview of our ministry. We will be able to give a proper reply to that when the report comes out.

[1630]

K. Corrigan: On 6.3, then, will progress on that particular recommendation be included in the report that was mentioned earlier that is coming out in October?

Hon. S. Anton: The status of all the recommendations will be reported out at that time.

K. Corrigan: We're going to move to some questions on victim services now.

The budget for victim services for 2012-2013 was $40.231 million. For 2013-14 the operating expenses are budgeted at $40.21 million, which is essentially about the same, a slight drop.

I'm wondering if the minister feels that that is adequate to fund victim services, given that these services, the community agencies, have the same pressures that many other agencies do. They often have collective agreements, or they have staff increases. I'm wondering how the minister thinks those community-serving agencies are going to be able to handle their increased costs when the budget has stayed the same.

[M. Dalton in the chair.]

Hon. S. Anton: The victim services budget is the same. We are, as the hon. member will know, under significant fiscal pressures. It is my obligation to balance my ministry budget. But we have protected the budget of victim services, recognizing the importance of the programs that are offered.

K. Corrigan: I have heard from several organizations in my community and, through my colleagues, from others that essentially a static budget in this area — and I believe it has been static for a few years, although I don't have the budget from previous years — means that valuable programs, victim service programs, are in essence being cut.

Would the minister acknowledge that a static budget during times of increasing costs, as all times are, means that victim services — the service levels — will, essen-
[ Page 1053 ]
tially, go down?

[1635]

Hon. S. Anton: Every organization that works in government right now does have to look for ways to find efficiencies and to balance their budgets. That being said, though, I would like to point out the very significant investment that my ministry makes in funding to support victims of crime and women and children impacted by violence every single year — over $70 million. That includes $12.4 million for victim service programs, $16.5 million for violence-against-women programs, $12.3 million for crime victim assistance programs and $32 million for transition house services.

That last one actually comes from B.C. Housing. In any event, that's the $70 million commitment from government to funding to support victims of crime.

K. Corrigan: I know what the numbers are, and I know the numbers have essentially stayed static and, in fact, even gone down slightly over the last several years. My question to the minister was: with rising costs for the service providers and static or slightly decreasing budgets, does the minister acknowledge that this means a decline in service levels in this area?

Hon. S. Anton: The staff in my ministry work very closely with the service providers. There are dedicated staff all around the province who work closely with these organizations. They understand their issues, they understand their challenges, and they work with them to help them manage their budgets and to deliver the services that they are contracting to deliver.

K. Corrigan: Well, I'm talking to those same service providers, and the way they achieve the efficiencies that the minister is talking about usually means that they cut back on staff. That's what they tell me.

They show me their budgets, and they say, "Look, it stayed the same, or it's declined, and what we've had to do is cut back on staff," and that means a cut in services. We're not talking efficiencies or waste. We're talking: "Okay, that program for abused women we simply cannot offer anymore." I've seen it over and over again. I don't believe there are efficiencies to be found. There are service cuts to be found.

I'm going to ask another question. The ministry has always been very kind, and the minister of the day has been kind to provide to me every year for the last few years a list of all these organizations that receive funding — the transition houses and all of the various programs that are offered, the counselling programs, the Children Who Witness Abuse programs, and so on. The request is that we be provided that information again.

By the way, it may feel to ministry staff, as they're compiling that, that it just sort of goes into a void somewhere. I have many organizations that have said they really appreciated knowing what's going on, so I do appreciate that. If I could get a commitment for that again this year, that would be great.

Then I'm going to pass it over to my colleague from Esquimalt–Royal Roads, once I hear on that.

Hon. S. Anton: The answer is yes.

Hon. Chair, might I suggest a short break? We are here till seven, I think, and there's a break in the questioning right now. This might be a good time to take about ten minutes.

The Chair: I'll call a recess. Ten minutes is fine.

The committee recessed from 4:40 p.m. to 4:51 p.m.

[M. Dalton in the chair.]

M. Karagianis: I was asking questions the other day in the Children and Families Ministry and was quite fascinated by the fact that the Children and Families Ministry has a million dollars to put towards the provincial office of domestic violence that is housed in its ministry.

The minister was very clear that they played the lead for the provincial government in ensuring that all provincial policies, programs and services related to domestic violence would be unified and managed under that office. But when I asked some questions about the integrated teams, I was redirected over here to the Ministry of Justice.

So my question is here. According to the Minister of Children and Families, the Ministry of Justice funds the integrated teams and is responsible for setting them up and doing all of the management of those teams. I would like to ask the minister: what is the budget for the integrated teams? Can the minister also give me a status on the integrated teams?

Hon. S. Anton: Perhaps I could just get a nod from the member. Is it the domestic violence units that we're talking about here?

M. Karagianis: Integrated teams that are there to deal with domestic violence.

Hon. S. Anton: The domestic violence units are a co-located service delivery that pairs a police officer with a community-based victim service worker to address high-risk victims of domestic violence. In some cases they also co-locate a child welfare worker from Children and Families.

This victim service component of the domestic violence unit is funded in four communities: Abbotsford, New Westminster, Vancouver and the capital region. They're modelled after a similar unit piloted in San Diego
[ Page 1054 ]
and in Edmonton.

The primary focus of these units is victim safety. But evidence does suggest that they can result in increased conviction rates, decreased stays of proceedings, higher levels of victim satisfaction and engagement, increased ability of victims to follow through with legal action and enhanced safety for victims.

[1655]

If I might just address the opening remarks made by the hon. member as to the placing of the domestic violence response in Children and Families. Indeed, that is where it is, but there is very significant coordination with my ministry. Many of the initiatives are in my ministry, and there's a lot of cooperation and working back and forth between the ministries in the mutual pursuit of assisting with the serious issue that is domestic violence.

M. Karagianis: Unfortunately, the minister didn't address my question about what the budget is for these…. I see that the minister is now calling them units. Certainly, in my prior experience here they were called integrated teams. What are the budgets for these teams? What is the status of the current four teams? Are they fully operational?

In addition, the minister touched on the next question I was going to ask, which is about how this partnership is going to work between the Ministry of Children and Family Development and the Justice Ministry. Who, at the end, takes responsibility for the implementation, the effectiveness, the oversight and all of that? It looks like the office that's housed with Children and Families has some responsibilities, and the Justice Ministry has others.

I was sent here to ask questions about the status of the teams and what the budget was. I'd just like to understand a little bit more how the teams work and how this partnership is going to work between MCFD and the ministry.

At the end of the day, for those seeking support services for domestic violence, to whom should they turn? Who should they be talking to in order to access services or to report issues or to get information in the future on what these teams are doing and if there are any changes to how these domestic units are operating?

Hon. S. Anton: It's a slightly more complicated answer than I thought. My ministry put $16.5 million dollars into violence-against-women programs. The units that I was referring to a moment ago are units put together, fundamentally, by police, and they are run by people who are doing their jobs. They're just doing their regular jobs, so there is no additional funding for them. People view that as being in the normal course of their obligations, and they work together on these integrated teams.

They are funded from various places. My ministry would fund the victim services workers. Police, of course, are funded generally by local municipalities. So the funding does come from different places. There is no bucket of funding to pay for them. As I said, it's people working within their existing jobs and their existing resources in doing this particular job.

M. Karagianis: The last piece of that question was about, I guess, who is overseeing the effectiveness of these teams. The Minister of Children and Families said to me that the role of the provincial office of domestic violence is to work in partnership with the Justice Ministry to monitor and evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of these teams. So who is responsible for that? And what is the nature of the partnership with the justice department?

[1700]

If in fact the minister is saying that it's just up to police departments in these four communities, then what is the $16.5 million allocated to? I'm not sure I understand what the money for domestic violence is used for if it is not, in some way, used for these units, these teams. Who do they report to? How does any of this get coordinated with MCFD?

Hon. S. Anton: The provincial office of domestic violence is a coordinated government response to domestic violence, which is a direct result of a recommendation that came from the Representative for Children and Youth, a recommendation coming from the Schoenborn inquiry.

M. Karagianis: It was actually the Christian Lee report.

Hon. S. Anton: Well, there were two inquiries.

The office itself is a coordinating office. It does not deliver programs. Mainly, the programs get delivered through my ministry, and the domestic violence units are actually mainly a policing response. Those are coordinated through police departments.

That being said, there is constant contact between those units and staff in my ministry and also the provincial office of domestic violence. So it's not straightforward to say there's a clump of money that pays for X. There are a lot of people working on this goal, and they work together. They work closely with our ministry, and they work closely with the provincial office. This is, as I said, a response to the recommendations made by the Representative for Children and Youth.

K. Corrigan: Just on that, maybe another question. In the minister's office, in the ministry, is there somebody who has half-time responsibility or a quarter responsibility? Can the minister give me some idea?

It seems to me that to deliver effective services, you need to have a certain amount of time and you need to have a point person. The key to this is supposed to be coordination. So is there a person who is the point person
[ Page 1055 ]
in the ministry? And if there is point person, what percentage of their time do they spend in the coordinating mode for the domestic violence units?

[1705]

Hon. S. Anton: I think the question was about resourcing. On the domestic violence unit side there are four people, one in each unit, who are contracted services. They would report up through their contracting agency. There is one-half of an FTE who works across the ministries to help the coordination on the police side.

K. Corrigan: To make sure I've got that clear, there are four people through the contracted agencies that are full-time, working and paid by the Ministry of Justice indirectly through the contracts, plus on the police side a half FTE, but that would not come from the Ministry of Justice budget. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Anton: The member is correct on the first statement as to the reporting relationship through the four FTEs. On the police budget side that is actually our budget through the police services division.

K. Corrigan: Yes, that actually does make sense. Thank you for those answers.

I wanted to move now to the office to combat trafficking in persons. I don't know if there needs to be any change on that or a minute of movement here.

I have asked these questions before, but there have been some changes, so I'm going to ask a few questions. Up until about 2010 there was a separate unit called the office to combat trafficking in persons. It had six employees, including an executive director, and an office in Victoria and an office in Vancouver.

That was then substantially cut. The budget was cut from $650,000 to $300,000 in 2010-2011. I have canvassed this in the past, but we now have a new human trafficking plan. I believe that in the ministry service plan there was recognition that this is an important area. It's an important issue in British Columbia.

What I wanted to know now is how many FTEs there are that are working on the action plan or working to combat human trafficking in the Ministry of Justice.

[1710]

Hon. S. Anton: The office to combat human trafficking is the only office of its kind in Canada and is a most interesting initiative. It is a priority for my ministry.

In the community safety and crime prevention branch 50 staff are trained in human trafficking. In the actual office itself there are three people, all of whom are experts in human trafficking.

K. Corrigan: So there were six, and there are three now. You say that's three full-time FTEs who are working exclusively on the issue of human trafficking?

Hon. S. Anton: That is correct.

K. Corrigan: The minister talks about this being a unit, and that's a good thing. My understanding was that it was folded back into the ministry. Two questions, then. First of all, is this a separate unit again? Second, whether it's a separate unit or not, what is the budget, including the staff budget, for the office?

Hon. S. Anton: There are the three people who work in this unit. They are supported generally by the ministry, so there is no separate breakdown of the budget. Their back end is branch staff. In terms of all their other functions that one needs for an office, that's done by branch staff. The three of them are there together as a unit.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to ask about one specific part of the plan, just to get a sense of how we are doing. I know it has very recently been released, the plan, but it says: "The office to combat trafficking in persons builds relationships with aboriginal communities and organizations to address the domestic trafficking of aboriginal youth and women." I'm wondering if I could get, to use this as an example, some specific information about the how the office is doing that and what kind of progress there has been to date.

[1715]

Hon. S. Anton: I think it's easier to speak on this by way of example. One of the ways that this work is done is through grants to different organizations. Those grants generally come from civil forfeiture funds. For example, the Blueberry River First Nations received $14,300 on a healthy relationships project to build the capacity of staff to address unhealthy relationships, other forms of violence, sexual exploitation and gangs, through coaching, mentoring and training to promote healthy relationships, educate community members about preventing gang involvement and commercial sexual exploitation.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if it would be possible for the ministry staff to put together a list of the various grants that would be seen to be related to the work of this office.

Now, I understand that some of these grants are going to cross over into victim services and some of the other stuff, but I think it would be worthwhile to have a look and see what the grants are that are particularly related, not just with aboriginal efforts but efforts generally, with the office to combat trafficking in persons.

Hon. S. Anton: The answer to that is yes.

K. Corrigan: Well, thank you. I'm not going to ask
[ Page 1056 ]
any more questions. We're running…. We've got lots of things I'd like to talk about and ask questions about, so I'd like to go now to….

I'm going to continue on with community safety and ask a couple of questions about the safe communities act and the implementation of that, civil forfeiture, and then we're going to go to Corrections.

Then, just for the information of staff, we're going to go to Emergency Management B.C., then policing, then the office of the superintendent of motor vehicles. We're going to do all of that in an hour and a half — no problem.

Going to the safe communities act. This was an act that was passed in the last session. What it provides for is the ability of the province to set up a unit that will have the ability for people to report things like crack houses and so on, use civil mechanisms as opposed to criminal mechanisms to control houses of drugs and wild house parties and so on. I'm wondering what the progress is and what the timelines are and whether there's any budget for this new office.

[1720]

Hon. S. Anton: The Community Safety Act does address disruptive properties — I think it's safe to say "neighbourhood annoyance" — and difficulties and challenges of many types. There is one full-time executive director, who is developing an implementation plan. That work is underway. I don't think I can answer more than that at the moment. The plan is underway. When it is developed, we will be able to talk about it further.

K. Corrigan: I appreciate that there's an executive director doing that work now. Other than that executive director's salary, is there anything in the budget, and are there any timelines as to when this new agency is going to be up and running?

Hon. S. Anton: The form of the agency, the work that it will do — all of those things are still in planning. I don't want to predict what the budget might look like in the future because of the rather early stages of planning that the project is in.

K. Corrigan: When does the minister expect that there will be the ability to report back with progress and a timeline?

Hon. S. Anton: The implementation options will be done within this fiscal year.

K. Corrigan: I'm going to ask a few questions about civil forfeiture now. I'm not sure if we need to have a change. I tried not to make it impossible, but I don't know exactly who works on what. At least we're staying in the community safety area for a minute.

There have been some fairly significant changes to the Civil Forfeiture Act over the last few years, where originally, in order to access the proceeds of crime, there needed to be an application to court. There were some changes that said that, essentially, there'd be an administrative process for certain classes of proceeds of crime or for things that were used in a crime.

So there's been a change. I'm wondering if the minister can tell me…. I know there has been a lot of money that has been accessed through the civil forfeiture, and I'm wondering if the minister could break down over the last year how many and how much of the proceeds that were received in the civil forfeiture office were ones that were used through the administrative process and how much were received through the court process.

[1725]

Hon. S. Anton: I do not have the breakdown that the hon. member is requesting. What I can say is that between 2006 and up until the end of the previous fiscal year $31.9 million was taken in by the program.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister would commit to providing that information. I'd be very interested to see what the breakdown is now with the new processes in place — the breakdown between the administrative process and the ones that actually have to go to court in order to get those proceeds of crimes.

I also wanted to have the minister respond to recent criticisms about the use of the civil forfeiture law. There have been some cases that have been fairly high profile.

I guess I could just quote from a recent article by Ian Mulgrew, where he says that "only a handful of cases have made it through the courts, but those underscore a capriciousness and a lack of proportionality in the legislation's application that have been unchecked because it is so costly to litigate in this province." He also says that the law "is also being used in ways that weren't anticipated — to inappropriately and severely punish certain first-time offenders or even those not criminally charged."

Now, my understanding, actually, is that usually the civil forfeiture law is used when there is not a criminal. I mean, that is the standard. I'm wondering if the minister could respond to this comment by the journalist.

[1730]

Hon. S. Anton: The first part of that question was easy. The answer is yes. We will provide the breakdown between the pure administrative and the piece that goes through the courts.

The second part — this is an effective program. There is due process, and there is confidence in the program.

K. Corrigan: Well, there may be confidence in the program, but has the minister and the ministry done anything to address these very specific allegations — that the use of the act has gone far beyond what was expected and
[ Page 1057 ]
that there are fairly outlandish proceeds that are coming into the ministry, sometimes with somebody who has never even been charged with a crime? What is the ministry doing in order to assure that there are not abuses in the system?

Hon. S. Anton: The process of civil forfeiture is a clear one. It satisfies Charter rights, and both civil and criminal processes must meet Charter protections. As I said, there is confidence in the program.

K. Corrigan: Given the time, I'm going to move on to another area, and we're going to ask a few questions to do with corrections. Musical chairs.

I've been in this critic role for a while now. I know that because I recognize just about everybody who's on the other side. Welcome.

I wanted to ask a little bit about capacity at the regional correctional centres — the nine of them. We're actually down a little bit, but I just wanted to check on that. What are we currently running at, in terms of percentage above average? I understand most recently that it's somewhere around 150 percent.

[1735]

Hon. S. Anton: The number is 136 percent yesterday — 136 percent usage of total cell capacity.

K. Corrigan: My understanding is that Corrections has predicted that the average is going to go up for the next while. I'm wondering what the expectation is over the next couple of years. I know we're going to have some new facilities coming on line, but what is the expectation over the next, say, two years?

Hon. S. Anton: It is estimated, and these are rather precise numbers, that the overall population will go up 3.5 percent this next fiscal year and 1.3 percent per year after that. The ratio, though, that I mentioned earlier, the 136 percent — it is expected that that ratio will decline due to the opening of additional facilities.

K. Corrigan: One of the concerns that I know the officers who work in the various correctional centres have had is the inmate-to-officer ratio. It's my understanding that at North Fraser Pretrial Centre the officer-to-inmate ratio is 1 to 60 and that the plan under the direct supervision model for the new Okanagan correctional centre and the SPSC, the Surrey Pretrial Services Centre, expansion is that there is going to be this direct supervision model and that the inmate ratios will be 1 to 72.

I'm wondering if the minister could, first of all, confirm that those are the ratios that are happening or intended for the future and whether or not the minister feels that this is a sufficient number of officers in order to prevent assaults against correctional officers and also assaults and violence between the inmates themselves.

[1740]

Hon. S. Anton: The numbers mentioned by the hon. member are not the same as the numbers that my staff have. The ratio is about 1 to 30 for direct supervisory staff. On top of that you have, going through the units, supervisors and program staff. The ratios are much different and much better than was suggested by the number given earlier.

In terms of direct supervision, there has been direct supervision in all centres since 1984.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the discrepancy could be explained by some units having 1 to 72. Is the minister saying that there will be no units where at any given time there could be one officer and 72 inmates, because you have 36 cells that are double-bunked — that that is not possible, that that is not going to be happening?

Hon. S. Anton: I'll correct something I said a moment ago. I said 1 to 30. That's not correct. Staff move in and out of the units.

I think the answer is that it's very difficult to say it is this or it is that. There is one officer assigned to a unit, but there are other staff constantly going through. So there's one supervisory staff. There are other staff coming through at all times. There's one guard. There are other guards that go through. Then there are supervisory staff and program staff. So there aren't fixed numbers like what was given earlier. The number varies constantly, depending on what's going on in the unit at that time.

K. Corrigan: I'm not going to be able to spend much more time on this. Maybe what I'll do is write a letter to the minister and seek some further explanation. My understanding is that some of the new units will have 36 cells in them. The plan is for those cells to be double-bunked, and the plan is to have one correctional officer on duty — albeit, perhaps, others walking through and others supervising.

[1745]

Is the plan to have — for example, at Okanagan or at any other place — one officer responsible on a continuing basis for up to 72 inmates?

Hon. S. Anton: The ministry has spent $185 million since 2007 to increase capacity in the system. The goal is not to have 36 units that are double-bunked. The goal is to reduce that. That's why we are increasing capacity, and in particular, that's why the new Okanagan correctional centre is being built.

So there is, indeed, one officer posted per unit of 36. But the goal is not to be 36 times two. The goal is to be less than that, whatever the number turns out to be. But the double-bunking is something we're trying to get away
[ Page 1058 ]
from. That's why there is this unprecedented expansion.

K. Corrigan: I appreciate the acknowledgment that it will be one officer per 36, with other people coming in, in various capacities. I recognize that. But it has been an ongoing problem, and it's certainly something that those that work there are concerned about.

We had North Fraser Pretrial Centre. There were 45 assaults against correctional officers in 2012. So that's important. Then, it's also the safety of the inmates, which can't be forgotten, particularly where there is a feeling that there's increased violence in our correctional centres.

Just a final thought on that, and it's not necessarily something that has to be responded to. One of the concerns I have is that if you — albeit in units that have better visual…. They're designed better, so you can have better sightlines and so on. I've been to some of the correctional facilities. Many of those people have mental illnesses, an undue number. That's just the way it is. Many people benefit from greater human contact.

One of my concerns is that if you have high officer-to-inmate ratios, the positive influence in those lives of those individuals can be lost. So you can technically make the place a safer place, but in the meantime, you may decrease the human contact, which can be beneficial to the inmates and, ultimately, also to the safety of the correctional officer.

I just wanted to make that observation. I don't know if there needs to be a response, but I'll sit down for a second and see if there is.

Hon. S. Anton: I will make the observation in reply that safety of staff and safety of inmates is, obviously, a prime consideration at all times.

L. Krog: I'd like to raise a discrete issue in this area with the minister, and it is simply this. I'm advised by process servers that, formerly, when they wished to serve civil documents at correctional centres, etc., they would contact the duty supervisor, advise what was required, a date would be given and a time set up for service. It would usually take place in the duty supervisor's office or the records department.

Certainly, at one of the institutions — I don't wish to get anyone in trouble, so to speak — I can advise that the new policy in place is that when the process server contacts the institution, they let the inmate make the decision as to whether or not they will be allowed to be served.

[1750]

Now, it's a very interesting proposition because, as the minister might guess, some of the documents being served might well be an application by the Ministry of Children and Families for apprehension of the inmate's children. So we have the possibility that the process server goes back to the ministry and says: "Tough luck. Couldn't do it. Inmate didn't feel like being served." The ministry then hires counsel, of course, to go back into court to apply for a substituted service order.

I'm just wondering if the minister is aware of this issue, what her feelings about it might be and whether she'd be prepared to give some direction if, in fact, this is an issue at any institution under the province's jurisdiction.

Hon. S. Anton: That is a most interesting question. I think it's safe to say my staff were prepared for many eventualities but not that one. I would be glad to get back to the hon. member with a response.

K. Corrigan: I'm going to ask some questions — I and a few of my colleagues — in the area of Emergency Management B.C. now.

My first question is: the Emergency Management B.C. department of the ministry — how many FTEs work in that department?

Hon. S. Anton: Based on the budget, there are about 166 individuals working in Emergency Management B.C. They're not necessarily all FTEs.

K. Corrigan: I probably would have gone into this in more detail, but I'm running quite short of time. I'm going to go directly to an issue that I have had a great deal of concern about and ask a couple of questions about that. That is what is happening with Hummingbird Creek at Swansea Point near Sicamous.

[1755]

In 1997 there was a very major debris flow that caused, I think, in the area of $4 million worth of damage and one indirect death from a heart attack. There was a huge amount of material that came down in Swansea Point, which is a really lovely little resort and permanent home area fairly close to Sicamous. It came down the hill and went into the lake.

That happened in 1997. Since then the residents have been looking for assistance to make sure that the fundamental problems that there are with that creek, and the debris flows that have been associated and the flooding, are addressed. In 1997 that happened. There were some reports done and so on, and there is real danger to the people of that community.

In 2004, I believe, there was a promise that there was going to be real restoration. The bridge that goes along the highway, which cuts through the community, was going to be replaced. There was the suggestion that there would be catch basins and so on, or else a change of the culverts, some large remedial work done, in order to prevent future major events.

There has been some flooding in between, but in 2004 there was an announcement. It might have been 2003. In 2004 it was decided that there would be a referendum on the matter. The deal on the referendum, essentially, was that there would be a referendum to have this major re-
[ Page 1059 ]
medial work done, but the contingency on that was that the people of Swansea Point would have to agree that they were going to pay for future maintenance.

The people of Swansea Point voted against the referendum. They said they didn't want to set what they saw as a precedent in the province of British Columbia that they were going to have to look after a provincial creek and take on the maintenance of a provincial creek where up above there had been a lot of logging over the years. There's a suggestion that the logging was related to these events.

So no major work has been done. There's been some remedial work over the years. But the problem with the culvert that goes under the highway, the high flows at the freshet and so on, continue.

Last summer, in June of 2012, there was another major event. I have seen the pictures, and I have visited Swansea Point. There was another major debris flow. Again, this community had millions of dollars worth of damage and homes badly damaged.

My question on behalf of the people of Swansea Point, who are afraid for their lives when the spring freshet comes: what is the ministry going to do, or will the minister commit to having a final solution to this problem?

Now, I know that the Ministry of Transportation is working…. But my understanding, from briefing notes to the past Minister of Justice, was that emergency planning was taking the lead in coordinating. I want to know what the solution is going to be for the people of Swansea Point.

Hon. S. Anton: The work has been done at Hummingbird Creek since the debris flow in June 2012, which the hon. member is referring to. That includes sediment removal from the channel and bank strengthening to prevent erosion. The province has provided about $566,000 in funds for these instream works, which were completed in March of this year, to support the enhancements.

[1800]

The Ministry of Transportation is working on the file. They are preparing a new engineering and hydrology report which is due to be released this fall. I think, obviously, various parties are aware of this. It does appear that Transportation is working on the outstanding issue of the culvert.

K. Corrigan: I just received, in the last few days, results of an FOI that somebody in the community did. The results of the FOI included six pages of a report that was done by Klohn Crippen in 2003. The people of the community have been asking for all the reports, year after year, and it's been like pulling teeth. This one they didn't get until they did an FOI.

This report, which is dated June 24, 2003 — the year before the referendum happened — states…. I'm going to make a couple of quotes. What they were asked to do, essentially, was to assess the risk that was associated with Hummingbird Creek. I'm going to just do some random quotes. I'm sure the ministry is aware of this, because it was their report.

"There is ongoing risk to Swansea Point from debris flow."

Then there are some calculations.

"On this basis, the future frequency of debris flow is expected to increase. There is an ongoing risk of slope failures in or above the Mara and Hummingbird gullies. Overall, there have been an estimated six to ten damaging debris flow or flood events in the last 75 years or approximately eight to 13 events per century — i.e., the annual probability of a damaging debris flow or flood event is 0.082 to 0.13."

So basically, 8 to 13 percent, I understand.

"Future frequency is expected to increase due to hydrologic evidence and continued anthropogenic development."

The probability of the death of an individual was calculated. It was found that the…. Then they talk about various options that could be used to remediate the problems at Swansea Point. Then it talks about the different options and what impact it would have on the probability of death.

"It was found that the implementation of option 2 would reduce the PDI, the probability of a death of an individual, by half and that option 3 would reduce the risk by 75 percent. History indicates the risk of loss of life at Swansea Point is real, and there is strong likelihood of loss of life if no remediation is undertaken."

The various options that were being talked about then were not $500,000 over various years. It was in the millions of dollars.

My question to the minister is: how could the ministry have had a referendum and proposed a referendum that the ministry knew, the participants knew, was likely going to be turned down when they had this kind of information in their possession, and it was talking about the frequency of debris flows in the future and the real possibility of loss of life?

[1805]

Hon. S. Anton: I'll just go to the recent work first. The recent work has prepared the creek for anticipated flows to the standard normally used. This is paid as a shared responsibility. In fact, all of the flood mitigation that we do is generally paid for as a shared responsibility between the three levels of government — local, provincial and federal. The mitigation which was done at Hummingbird recently is consistent with standards in other mitigation projects around the province.

On the issue of the earlier report and the referendum, I think the hon. member may have to ask that question again, because I don't think we got the point on that. There was a report and there was a referendum, and the referendum was turned down. The referendum was to ask for a shared responsibility, and that was turned down. So the work didn't happen at that time, but it has in fact happened now, and it's done to our usual standards.

K. Corrigan: The most recent work was done after
[ Page 1060 ]
a second major debris flow that caused a great deal of damage, after a report was done in 2003 that pointed to exactly the possibility that there would be further very damaging events.

My point about the referendum is that there was a report that was not released to the public, that was not part of the discussion in the referendum process that happened the year before, that said that people would likely die and that there would be considerable damage unless major work was done.

That major work was not done, and yet the province allowed a referendum to go ahead, knowing there was a very good chance that it would be turned down because the people of Swansea Point were not aware of how dire the circumstances were, because the government had not shared this information with them. That's my point.

Hon. S. Anton: It's hard to go back ten years ago and say what was in people's minds at that time. People here today were not present at that time. I think I can just say that there was knowledge that there was danger there, hence the referendum and hence the work that's been done since.

K. Corrigan: This information and the severity of the circumstances were not shared with the public. I have talked to many of the residents. They are shocked. They have just received this. They are shocked by this report and the fact that it was withheld from them and that the decisions that they made, and that the government made subsequently, did not include any sharing of this information with them. They are very concerned.

What they want is for the problem to be fixed. The work that was done was a certain amount of remediation as a result of the very severe debris flow that wouldn't have happened if the government had done what it needed to do previously. Last year — another serious debris flow.

The work that was done was a certain amount of remediation, but the major work that this community believes needs to be done, on the basis of all of the reports they have looked at — not including this one, because they didn't have it — says that you need to make the culvert larger at the very least, says you need to build a new bridge, says you need to have a major catch basin. They have been asking for that for a decade or more.

[1810]

So they're very concerned. They want to know where the material is coming from. This is logging that was allowed by the province. They want to know what information the Ministry of Forests has, and they want to know what's going to happen in the future.

In fact, with this spring freshet, despite the work that was done in the early winter and spring…. It has been dug out. They had two excavators sitting there during the spring freshet. Thank goodness for that, or we would have maybe had more problems.

The creek has filled up again. It's now filled up again, and I understand that Ministry of Transportation staff are in there now taking a look at it. But it's filled up with debris again. The problem, they don't believe, has been fixed.

What they want is a permanent solution. They are living there. There are several hundred homes, and they are in danger, from their perspective.

Hon. S. Anton: As I mentioned earlier, natural hazard mitigation is a shared responsibility between the local authority, the province and, in some cases, the federal government — in fact, as often as we can get the federal government involved, I would say.

The district in this case has been encouraged to submit an application for project funding for a debris basin under the province's flood protection program. They did not submit an application for the 2013 intake. As I said earlier, Transportation is actively working on the file, and their report will be released this fall.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm sure this would interest her both as a minister but also as a Vancouver MLA. I'm curious if the ministry has any plans to do a microzonation study — I believe it's called — on Metro Vancouver because of earthquakes. A microzonation study allows you to get much more precise data of what would happen if an earthquake occurred.

My understanding is that one has been done for Victoria and one has been done through the city of Ottawa but that none has been done for Metro Vancouver. It would be incredibly helpful, given the huge population and the very real risk of an earthquake, to have the study done. I'm curious if the minister will be undertaking it.

Hon. S. Anton: The kind of study that the hon. member is referring to is in the purview of the local authority. Studies of hazards, risks and vulnerability are undertaken by the local authority.

I will add, though, that Emergency Management B.C. staff do work very closely with Metro Vancouver through the integrated partnership for regional emergency management.

[1815]

S. Robinson: The question I have is related to the heavy urban….

The Chair: Member, I would just like to advise that you cannot read from a device.

S. Robinson: Sorry. I was running around from different places and just….

The heavy urban search and rescue or HUSAR task force has had some cuts made by the federal govern-
[ Page 1061 ]
ment. They've lost $400,000. I understand now that the province also contributes about $200,000, and the city of Vancouver contributes about $150,000. They are going to have to fold because they can't operate.

These are the folks who respond and will respond to any major earthquake that we have, as my colleague just alluded to. They also responded to Johnsons Landing and the North Shore slide. I wanted to know if the province had any intentions of helping this group to survive, given that the cuts are really right to the bone and they have said they will no longer be able to continue providing service.

Hon. S. Anton: The province is committed to continuing funding, $200,000 a year for HUSAR, and we are disappointed in the withdrawal of the federal funding. There is active lobbying, I think it's safe to say, to get the federal government to restore that funding. Certainly it's very much in my mind that that funding should be restored.

K. Corrigan: Just a follow-up on that. I'm wondering exactly what kind of lobbying is going on. It is a real concern to the people of British Columbia that this is gone, certainly to those that rely on it. Maybe a little more detail from the minister.

Hon. S. Anton: Being relatively new — let me say rather new — in this post, I have not had the opportunity myself to engage in lobbying. I'm looking forward to that, looking forward to my meetings with federal counterparts on a number of issues. This will be one of them.

The previous minister did write a letter to the federal government. It has been raised at FPT meetings. I will say that to me, this is an important resource. It is a national resource. It's not a local resource. It's not even a provincial resource. It's a national resource, and it is appropriate that it should be funded federally.

K. Corrigan: Not on this specific issue, but certainly the Leader of the Official Opposition has offered in the past, when there were cuts, particularly to the Coast Guard…. He has offered to work, has said that the official opposition would be very pleased to work with the government in that case and, I think, in cases of other cuts as well.

Unfortunately, that offer was turned down. We believe that was an opportunity where it could have been shown, with regard to the Coast Guard, that there is unity in British Columbia and that there was real concern about the cuts that have happened to the Coast Guard. So just to mention that we're always willing to work with the minister on issues of lobbying, and that offer continues to be in place.

With that, unless the minister wants to respond, I'm going to go on to the fire commissioner's office and ask some questions about that.

[1820]

We have had two major reports, one in 2009, by the Fire Services Liaison Group, and now one very much more recently. That was in March of 2013, and it was revised in May of 2013.

The first report, the 2009 one by the Fire Services Liaison Group, which includes a whole wide spectrum of stakeholders concerned with fire safety in British Columbia, including representation from the fire commissioner's office as well as the fire chiefs of British Columbia, the firefighters and a whole variety of groups — that first report in 2009.

Now this one, 2013, the B.C. Fire Training Needs Assessment, which was done for the fire chiefs — commissioned by the fire chiefs — but they took great pains to have the study done independently. They believe it is an independent study with some very good recommendations. That was done by the BCIT SITE Centre for Applied Research.

I don't have a lot of time, but the general tenor of the report in 2009, about which I wrote a letter to the then Minister of Justice in 2012, and then this most recent report in 2013, generally speaks to the need for leadership from the fire commissioner's office and in the Ministry of Justice on a whole range of areas.

Both of those reports say we are not doing a good job in terms of training, that there is a wide variety of capacities across British Columbia and that particularly for smaller areas, for rural areas, we are not doing a good enough job and there is not enough fire coverage and fire fighting capacity in those communities. I believe the most recent report said that 300 communities are underserviced in terms of fire.

Given what has happened in Quebec, and given the discussions about what has happened with the explosions at mills — and again, a third explosion — my question for the minister is: what is this ministry planning on doing to address the lack of coordination that is absolutely the responsibility of the ministry and fire commissioner's office? What is the government going to do to address the many, many concerns that have been expressed in these two reports and which obviously have not been acted on in the past?

Hon. S. Anton: I'll just start with the proposition that delivery of fire services is a local authority. However, that being said, there is a great deal of interest in the office of the fire commissioner in helping the local authorities to deliver fire services properly.

In fact, in response to the 2009 report, there has been a report written by Emergency Management B.C. and the office of the fire commissioner called Improving Fire Services: The Office of the Fire Commissioner's Response to the FSLG Report. I don't know if the hon. member has this report, but this is a detailed response to the recommendations and a number of implementation activities.
[ Page 1062 ]

[1825]

K. Corrigan: I have read the response. But unfortunately, we have another report in 2013 that essentially says we haven't been doing the job. One of the areas the 2009 report talks about is one of the recommendations.

Again, this multiparty fire liaison group says…. The recommendation is that "the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General initiate and fund a joint study with the office of the fire commissioner, local governments and the fire services advisory board on improving the fire investigation and inspection system in British Columbia, with particular attention to the local assistant to the fire commissioner system."

There are many recommendations like that — which says, essentially, that what has to happen is the provincial government has to take more of a leadership and coordinating role in order to ensure that inspections are done in order to not necessarily prevent but certainly respond to tragedies similar to those that happened here in British Columbia.

Again, in 2013 we have another report. I appreciate that there has been a response. But we have another report that says that we haven't been doing the job. I will just jump to it. Anyways, I don't have much time on this. Essentially, what it says is that we haven't been doing the job.

I want to ask the minister today what the ministry is going to do in order to ensure that we do a better job in terms of inspections, that we do a better job in terms of training, because we have another report that says there are real gaps there.

Hon. S. Anton: Once again, it is a local authority responsibility, but the fire commissioner and his office do take assisting the local authority very seriously.

On the inspections, there is an inspection training program, which will run here in August. The office is assisting the local authorities on inspections and investigations and in helping out so that the local authorities are more adept at delivering those services.

K. Corrigan: Well, I'm just going to finish with a couple of quotes here. I don't believe that answer is good enough. The most recent report found that average funding of the offices of the fire commissioners or fire marshals across Canada is $2.99 per capita, excluding outliers who have extremely high per-capita numbers. B.C. is lagging significantly behind, at 20 cents per capita, less than 1/10 of what most fire commissioner offices are being funded at.

I believe that every person that works in that office is doing a wonderful job. The problem is there are not resources there. The resources are not there. It is partially a local responsibility. Fire safety is partially a local responsibility.

But what these reports are saying is that many, many communities simply do not have the capacity in fire safety, in emergency planning, in a whole range of areas in the safety spectrum.

[1830]

They're not getting the help from the province that they need. They do not have the capacity, and the result is that many communities are in danger and, therefore, their citizens are in danger. They are concerned, and they should be concerned.

There are no minimum firefighter training requirements being enforced by the legislation. Seventy-five percent of B.C.'s fire departments are volunteer departments. They do not have the capacity, so with that level of funding, it is no wonder. I think it is wrong, frankly, for the minister to say simply that it's a local responsibility.

They can't do it, and if there is a major disaster, many communities are not able to deal with the fire. They don't know who should be going in. They don't have the training to know whether they should be going into a building or whether it should be external. So we have the potential, I suggest, for real disaster, and it's partly because this government has refused to fund the office of the fire commissioner. I think that's unfortunate, and I think it needs to be addressed.

The Chair: Does the member have a question?

K. Corrigan: Yes. Thank you, hon. Chair.

Again, what does the minister plan to do about the gaps of service that are there because of the lack of leadership?

Hon. S. Anton: In terms of the funding question, the funding to the fire commissioner, it's very difficult to compare the budgets of fire commissioner and fire marshal bodies across provinces, as organizational mandates and circumstances differ widely. In terms of training, it is important to recognize that communities do indeed have different capacities. To set a one-size-fits-all, universal framework doesn't meet the individual needs of a community. Flexibility is key.

Last year the fire commissioner laid out a number of practical steps to improve training for B.C. firefighters, particularly those in small and volunteer departments. We've created the document to assist local authorities to review and define what services they wish their fire department to deliver, and the office of the fire commissioner has developed a manual to assist local governments and local authorities to establish minimum training standards for their firefighters. These responses were based on extensive consultation with local government, fire service and other stakeholders.

K. Corrigan: I don't have any more time to ask questions about that, unfortunately, so I'm going to have to
[ Page 1063 ]
put that aside.

I was going to ask some questions on policing. I'm sorry to staff that are here for those questions. I don't think we'll get to it because we only have ten minutes left — or 15 maximum — and I have a colleague here.

I also have a couple of questions that I'd like to ask. I'm not sure which part of the ministry it is, but I'm going to ask the questions. I hope the staff is…. I'm sure that the deputy minister can handle it if the staff aren't here, although I think they've all stayed late, so we do appreciate that.

Last year the Justice Minister met with families of workers killed on the job due to negligence by the employer. It was reported that the then minister committed to a series of actions to ensure justice for people killed on the job due to employer negligence. I'm wondering if the minister could advise what those commitments were and the extent to which they have been acted upon.

[1835]

Maybe I'll just add the second part of that question. I understand that one concern is that the sites of fatalities are often turned over to Workers Compensation without a full investigation by responding police, such that the standards of the evidence collected may not support prosecution. I'm wondering what, if anything is being done to remedy this. So that's a two-parter.

Hon. S. Anton: Recognizing the concerns which the hon. member is raising, there was indeed a meeting. The police services staff are now working with WorkSafe B.C. and police departments on a protocol for investigating workplace incidents which may possibly have a criminal aspect to them — in other words, so that the investigations are done properly. The B.C. Federation of Labour has been kept in the discussions and consulted with on this protocol. That protocol is in the final stages right now.

K. Corrigan: Just one follow-up question. The first part of my question was on the Justice Minister having met with families of workers killed on the job and a commitment to a series of actions. I'm wondering if the minister could advise what those commitments were and the extent to which they have been acted on. I'd be very pleased if the minister wants to provide that response in writing. That would be fine with me, and maybe that would be good, because I have a colleague that wants to ask a couple of DriveABLE questions.

Hon. S. Anton: Yes, I think it would be easier if we did that in writing. Perhaps I could get a nod from the hon. member. Would she like to write us, or will we just respond?

K. Corrigan: I think the question was pretty clear, so a response from the minister would be nice.

Hon. S. Anton: We will get that response.

N. Simons: My questions refer to the office of the superintendent of motor vehicles and specifically to the DriveABLE program and the SIMARD-MD program. I'm just wondering. In March 2012 the minister committed to an independent peer review of the SIMARD-MD and the DriveABLE programs, which have affected many seniors in the province. Can the minister give us the status of those reviews?

[1840]

Hon. S. Anton: Thank you for the question. The DriveABLE program — obviously the one that is being run right now in the branch…. There has been openness to considering other programs of a like nature. In fact, a year ago a request for expressions of interest was sent out, but there were no suitable replies — none that were better than what we've got right now.

I think it's safe to say that the staff in the branch are really trying to ensure that the program is run well and run fairly. Sometimes there comes a time when people cannot or should not drive anymore, but you don't want that time to be measured in error. People do need to have the opportunity to pass the test. In fact, now they can pass the in-office or the on-road test, so there are two opportunities to be assessed as being capable of driving.

N. Simons: The process is as follows: the person will go to the doctor at age 80, and they will be given a SIMARD-MD test, created by Bonnie Dobbs, MD. That test will, in turn, either filter someone to the office of the superintendent of motor vehicles for further testing or not. That testing at the office of the superintendent will be conducted by the husband's company — Bonnie Dobbs' husband's company — DriveABLE B.C.

This is a SIMARD test, created by Bonnie Dobbs, in the doctor's office, which is, according to studies…. I'm sorry. The minister wasn't responsible for this, so I'm not really blaming her. But this program has victimized seniors across this province for too long. This has caused good drivers to be taken off the road.

Everybody will agree that there comes a time when seniors can't — or people can't — drive any longer, but this was a blunt instrument for a very sensitive issue. People in my riding and people in every riding of all my colleagues from both sides of the House have been negatively impacted by a poorly-thought-out process that victimized seniors and took their licences away when they didn't need to be taken away.

I think that a peer review would have been a good idea before they implemented this program. What we have is the perception among the public of a conflict of interest — a medical test that will filter too many people towards a test that her husband has created at the University of Alberta, where he is now the director of research for that
[ Page 1064 ]
particular company.

[1845]

I don't understand — not to mention the fact that the rules requiring doctors to use this SIMARD test, to be sent then to the DriveABLE test, were also written by that same person. So you have the government policy written by a person who says that a medical test is mandatory. She happens to be the creator of that medical test.

The seniors of this province deserve to have an explanation of how the government could have so incompetently put this program into effect, a program that — yes — takes bad drivers off the roads but takes as many good drivers off the road. It's a blunt instrument for an important and sensitive issue.

Is there any scientific evidence? I have searched everywhere, and I've asked the chair of research into seniors driving, and there appears not to be any showing that this is an effective program. Please, will the minister tell the seniors of this province that they found the evidence that what they've gone through has been worthwhile?

The Chair: Minister, noting that we have seven votes on top of Vote 32.

Hon. S. Anton: Thank you, hon. Chair.

I would just like to correct one thing said by the hon. member, which is that the SIMARD test that was referred to is not the only test that a doctor may use. The superintendent will take any evidence from a doctor saying that a person is incapable of driving. That comes from the doctors.

We do not take any action in the superintendent of motor vehicles unless a doctor sends a recommendation that that be done. I think it is very safe to say that nobody wants to see seniors lose their driver's licences unnecessarily. The program is always going to be judged for its optimal results.

L. Krog: I just wanted an opportunity on behalf of myself and my co-critic, the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake and the other members of the opposition to thank the minister and her staff, who have patiently done this over a three-day stretch. We much appreciate the opportunity to engage in this process. Thank you.

[1850]

Vote 32: Attorney General Operations, $368,402,000 — approved.

Hon. S. Anton: Thank you to the hon. members opposite for their interesting questions and enjoyable thinking over the last few days. It's been a very interesting process. I appreciate it.

Vote 33: Solicitor General operations, $639,516,000 — approved.

Vote 34: judiciary, $68,109,000 — approved.

Vote 35: Crown Proceeding Act, $24,500,000 — approved.

Vote 36: independent investigations office, $10,100,000 — approved.

Vote 37: British Columbia Utilities Commission, $1,000 — approved.

Vote 38: Emergency Program Act, $14,478,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES: OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

Vote 53: Environmental Appeal Board and Forest Appeals Commission, $2,075,000 — approved.

Hon. S. Anton: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Justice and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:54 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 2:39 p.m.

On Vote 30: ministry operations, $181,457,000 (continued).

Hon. S. Bond: Good afternoon, hon. Chair, and members of the opposition. I just want to recognize the terrific staff. There are lots of them here today because you have quite the agenda ready for us. We'll introduce them as we work our way through.

H. Bains: I, too, join the minister in rewelcoming those who were here yesterday and all of the ones that have joined here today. Thank you very much.

[1440]

As we said yesterday, and where we left…. There were
[ Page 1065 ]
a few questions left on WorkSafe B.C. We will be finishing those off and then move on to other areas, which are Labour — Employment Standards Act and labour code areas.

My question is to the minister about workers working their late-night shifts, working alone. As we know, there were very tragic instances where lives were lost. Changes were made — namely, Grant's law. Since that time, that law was modified or revised, and a third option was instituted.

My question to the minister is this. The third option, first of all, allows security cameras and a panic button to take the place of the real security of having a co-worker on a shift or a barrier to protect workers from any harm due to robbery or belligerent customers. It's very dangerous and very, very worrisome for late-night workers.

For the sake of the safety of those workers who are working late at night, usually at minimum wage…. We have seen the result of them working alone, those tragic incidents. Many families are still suffering from the loss of their loved ones. So my question to the minister is: why not go back to what was originally the case, where you had two options? Now there's a third option. Why will the minister not remove the third option?

Hon. S. Bond: This may just be a matter of the way the member phrased the question. Grant's law is related directly to paying before you pump your gas. That law is in place and hasn't been changed. What has been…. A third option was added to a regulation about working alone. Those are two separate pieces. Grant's law is law, and it wasn't changed.

[1445]

WorkSafe went out and talked to employers about how we keep individuals who work at night safe. I can assure the member opposite that employers care about employee safety, just as we do. Certainly, all members of the House do.

A third option was added, and I think what we have to look at is the effectiveness of the changes that were made. The member asked: "Are we contemplating removing the third option?" The answer to that would be no.

I think what we have to look at is how employers have chosen to comply to ensure that their workers are safe. If we look at the numbers, the smallest percentage of employers actually choose the third option: 27 percent of employers chose the barrier option, 25 percent chose the two-or-more-worker option, 13 percent chose a combination of the three options and 13 percent chose the violence prevention program option.

What matter most to me are the outcomes. Are workers safer today than they were before the options were introduced? At least one of the measures is how many claims have occurred that relate to incidents between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. In 2007 there were nine. In 2008 there were nine. In 2009 there were six. In 2010 there were seven. In 2011 there were two, and year to date, there's one. So we are seeing a reduction in those incidents, and that's exactly what we would hope to continue.

H. Bains: Grant's law — I mention that because that law was created because of that incident. Mr. Grant lost his life, and changes were made. That's what I'm talking about. The changes were made to provide protection to a worker who is working alone — which means either a barrier, pay before you get gas or have a second worker. Those were the options. But then the previous minister changed that and added a third option.

We've seen a security guard beaten up in Coquitlam just a few weeks ago because there was one person working at nighttime. I think the incidents are there, whether it's one incident…. The minister can stand up and read all the statistics, but those mean nothing to that one person who got beaten up, almost lost his life.

I think one incident of that nature is too much. I understand the minister cares about that. But I think, you know, using numbers and figures doesn't mean a thing to Grant's parents or to the relatives and to that worker who got beaten up as a security guard. And those incidents still happen.

The idea here is to stop, that no one be placed in a situation where they could be subject to that kind of assault and could lose their life. I think that's what the workers' representatives are asking and the families are asking: provide them with the kind of protection that was in the previous act, which means either there are two people or there's a barrier. The third one does not do the job.

Especially security guards. How do you do this kind of…? You know, having a panic button…. This is what they talk about — having a security camera or a panic button. All of that will be after the fact. Yes, it'll help you catch the person who caused the damage, but the idea is to protect and avoid that incident happening again. I think that's the question.

I ask the minister: why cannot we go back to those two areas of protection that were provided, rather than having a third, which is actually eroding the protection of those workers in those situations?

Hon. S. Bond: I hope the member will be thoughtful, and he usually is. To suggest that safety has been eroded by the addition of a third option is not accurate, and we're not contemplating removing the third option. To suggest that we wouldn't look at outcomes as a measure…. Yesterday we spent half the day talking about the fact that we needed to have more measures in place to measure. When you see the reduction in numbers from nine to one, year to date — and we certainly hope — that doesn't change dramatically, that is making progress.

[1450]

Of course we care about Grant's family and all of those who have been impacted by acts of violence. That's exact-
[ Page 1066 ]
ly why we look at ways to attempt to reduce those incidents, so prepayment for fuel — and the decision was very consciously made to call it Grant's law — in fact is an occupational health and safety regulation.

Has it been effective? Absolutely. Maybe there is some comfort for Grant's family in the fact that when you look at the Vancouver police department's statistics, there has been a 90 percent drop in incidents from 2007 to 2008 and a 100 percent drop from 2008 to 2012. I would hope that that at least leaves a positive legacy from what was a horrific set of circumstances. That is one regulation, and it has not been changed.

The second piece relates to working alone or in isolation. In fact, there were significant amendments made. Yes, a third option was added, but there was also a new definition of what it meant to work alone or in isolation. There were requirements made for employers to identify hazards to a worker before the worker is assigned to work alone and to take steps to eliminate or control the hazards — of course, late-night safety procedures, including a barrier or by assigning additional staff — and the third option was added to that.

All of these steps and measures reflect our desire to reduce those incidents, and the statistics speak for themselves.

H. Bains: Obviously, we would disagree on this one. And because we don't have very much time — there are other areas to canvass — I must say that I do not agree with the minister's assertion that adding a third option does not erode worker safety. It does.

I guess the minister has made it very clear. They are not contemplating changing that. So here we are. That's the government position.

I just want to move on to the other area we left with yesterday. In WorkSafe B.C.'s "Ten-Year Summary of Consolidated Financial Statements," the report that came out just the other day, there is one item here, under "Expenses," called "Health care." If I look at the ten-year record of that, it was about $170 million in 2003, and it was $474.596 million in 2011. Now it's $536 million this year, 2012. So $170 million to $536 million from 2003 to 2012.

Can the minister explain what that item is and why there is such an increase in expenditure in that one particular area?

[1455]

Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, with just a minute or two to look at the numbers, the general explanation is there are more workers in the work pool. We have more people working, and health care costs have increased. That's reflected year over year.

H. Bains: Can the minister explain what those health care costs include? What are they? Can we get a breakdown?

Hon. S. Bond: It's medical treatment, whether it's surgery, whether it's MRIs. If you go in for an assessment, paperwork is done. There are more workers, and as we see the workforce increase, you're going to see those numbers continue to go up.

H. Bains: I thought that most of your medical coverage would be covered under the Medical Services Plan. Are they making MSP whole? How are they paying? Where are they taking this extra cost?

Hon. S. Bond: All workers compensation systems across the country are not covered by the Canada Health Act. In fact, it's an employer-supported system, and employers cover the cost of those medical services through their insurance premiums. That's consistent right across the country.

H. Bains: The minister's answer to my question — the cost is going up. The minister is saying as the number of workers is increasing, the cost has gone up. I'm looking at it here. From 2003, 2004, 2005 till 2007 it's pretty well static. It is going from $170 million to $299 million to $281 million, $258 million and $273 million. That's 2007. From there — 2008 and 2009 — it's a huge jump. In 2008 it goes to $412 million. Then it goes to $420 million in 2009. Then it goes to $361 million in 2010. In 2011 it was $474 million. This year….

That's when the recession hit. I thought we had fewer workers working after 2008-2009 moving forward. Of course, there are probably more workers working this year than last year. But please explain, because I'm lost. The world was going through a recession in 2008-2009, and all of the workers were losing their jobs. And the minister is saying we had more workers and that's why the cost is higher?

I'd just like to get that explanation, because it just does not work with the time frame that we have here.

[1500]

Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, the member is looking for a more specific breakdown than we actually have available with us today. We'll look at getting him a more fulsome explanation and provide that to him at a later date.

H. Bains: I appreciate that, Minister.

Just to make my point, I'm looking at the unemployment rate in B.C. In 2006 it was 4.8; 2007, 4.3; 2008 it was 4.6. Then from there it jumps up. In 2009 it was 7.7; 2010 it was 7.6. And I think that's where we are today. So we have more people actually off work in those last three or four years that I'm mentioning. That's when the cost has gone up. So when you're replying and responding to that, please explain. How is that working? And how is that
[ Page 1067 ]
matching with your answer that the more workers are there, as a result of that, the cost has gone up?

I want to move on to another area here. We have one of the largest international companies that engaged in many contracts here in B.C., Kiewit. We talked about it a little bit yesterday. Now, I'm just going to read you something here. In 2008-2009 eight workers died at their worksites, and there were many questionable reasons and circumstances.

I had the opportunity to meet with Sam Fitzpatrick's parents, his dad and a family friend. They're devastated, and they don't get the answers that they are looking for — why their son was placed in that situation where he died. There are other questions that come out of their worksites.

Further, just last fall in California there was a worker who died at their worksite, which prompted the state industrial regulator to fine the company for safety breaches. We know it has been in the media that serious questions have risen about the quality of work this international construction giant has done, ranging from ice bombs at Port Mann…. We all know the bridge was shut down within weeks of opening. Then it was a skating rink a few weeks later. The surface was not de-iced properly.

Then we go on to San Francisco Bay Bridge issues and Lake Seattle's floating bridge — shoddy concrete in the San Francisco Bay Bridge and issues with leaky pontoons in the Seattle lake. I think there are some issues there about their work quality and their safety record.

My question to the minister is…. And many people who are working for this company and those who have their friends and relatives working there have these questions. Has the ministry ever looked at their safety record, their work record before they started to engage them in large public construction projects here in B.C.? Those raise very serious concerns about the safety record that they have and the work quality that we have witnessed elsewhere.

[1505]

Hon. S. Bond: Any time there's a serious injury or a loss of life, it's a difficult circumstance, and certainly I can't imagine how the Fitzpatrick family feels. But we should be clear that when government looks at contractors…. The question about procurement in terms of Kiewit needs to be directed to the Minister of Transportation, obviously. But it is important, and as a government we do ensure that companies that we engage with are registered and are in good standing with WorkSafe B.C. That is important, and that is something that is essential.

We should point out that Kiewit, as difficult as this circumstance has been, actually has a lower injury rate than others in their classification unit. So while it's obviously a high-profile, very traumatic set of circumstances, this company does have a lower injury rate than other, comparable companies in their classification unit.

Do we place a priority on safety? Yes. In fact, WorkSafe B.C. levied a penalty against this company. That's an important enforcement tool and sends a very strong message about the importance of safety. Kiewit has a comprehensive occupational health and safety program for the work that's done here in British Columbia. WorkSafe monitors and ensures that the company is in compliance and in good standing.

H. Bains: Thank you, Minister. You know, I never doubt for a moment that the minister or the ministry do not care about worker safety. I know they do. We all do. But I think the issue is sometimes if we have structures in place, regulations that may work or may not work…. Some companies are good at complying with those regulations; others are not. We just talked about it yesterday, about asbestos contractors. Some are really good contractors out there. They follow the rules. They protect their workers. But others…. We've seen the record — 250 write-ups and orders, and after the order was written, 50 more in violation.

[1510]

There are companies that will push to the limit. I think the question here is being asked on behalf of those families who lost their loved ones at workplaces there. They don't feel that the company is doing enough to protect their workers, and I don't blame them for feeling that way.

Eight deaths in two years, I think, is too many — eight too many. I think that's why this issue was brought to my attention. That's why I'm bringing this issue to your attention. They are a major player when it comes to embarking on major construction projects in British Columbia in past years, and I'm sure they probably will be around a few years more.

I think the message has to go to these companies that safety has to come number one. They cannot allow loopholes or allow some people working down below in a supervisory position who think production is more important than the safety of the workers. That is what is felt by many of these families.

I leave it at that. I want to move on, because of time constraints here, to farmworkers. As the minister would know, in 2007 there was a very bad accident. Three women lost their lives. Out of the investigation, 29 recommendations were recommended. I'm looking at the list. Maybe the minister could update me on those. Out of those 29, I'm looking at 14. Either they were completely ignored or, at my last count, they were partially complete or there was no action to date or they were uncertain whether they are actually looking at those.

Can the minister advise the House on how many of those 29 recommendations are complete, how many recommendations they are still working on and what the time frame will be to have those completed, and how many they will not complete?
[ Page 1068 ]

Hon. S. Bond: What happened, obviously, was a significant tragedy, and it has changed the shape of how we actually look at farmworker safety in British Columbia. Rather than read through all of the recommendations with a status update…. I don't know if the member is aware or not, but there is a website where, in fact, the recommendations….

[1515]

There is a document that's posted which lists all the recommendations and what action has been taken — in fact, not only the response but some of the outcomes. The member opposite would know that government accepted the recommendations and took them very seriously.

We work on a list of 17 recommendations, so I'm not certain how the member is talking about 29. It's 17 that were directly related to government. Eleven recommendations are complete. On three recommendations, action was taken but it was an alternative action. So in fact, it addressed the outcome, but in an alternate way. And work is ongoing on three of those recommendations.

The document that is posted on the website is very thorough. It would outline what action was taken. Perhaps I'll just give the member one example. Then he's welcome to go and take a look, or we can provide him with a copy of this.

Recommendation 2 was: "To increase enforcement of commercial vehicle speeding and tailgating, more strict adherence to 60-metre minimum space between commercial vehicles." The ministry, or agency, responsible was the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

The response was: "The enforcement of commercial vehicle speeding and tailgating infractions began in 2007 and continues today. On average, this enforcement has resulted in over 7,000 violation tickets and over an additional 4,000 warnings being issued across B.C. for commercial vehicle infractions annually."

So action was taken. Results are there, and there is a template on the website.

H. Bains: I think we are looking at two different lists. That list, yes, I understand. It's there, but there were others with this. Maybe I wasn't very clear.

The families and the B.C. Federation of Labour brought in recommendations. There were 29 of them. A number of them were adopted, and many of them were actually completed — those recommendations. But there were others that were…. For example, they were initiated but not completed. Then there are others — no action taken. Others were ignored.

My question is: those 29 recommendations that came from the families through the B.C. Federation of Labour — is that list still being worked on? Is the intention to complete and accept all those recommendations — that they will take action?

Hon. S. Bond: I don't have the family document, and neither does anyone behind me. But the report that the government responded to immediately and effectively was the coroner's report. Certainly, that is a significant set of recommendations. That's the document that's reflected on the website.

There has been a significant change in how British Columbia deals with the issue of farmworkers. I think that has been, again…. Out of a tragedy came some significant change.

To the member, I'm happy to see the document that he has. I would encourage him to look at the significant progress that's been made on the chief coroner's recommendations.

H. Bains: Let me move on to another area here. It's about the…. I don't know what you call it. It's a mandate letter from the Premier to the minister. I think all ministers have it.

In there I see one of the expectations of the Premier is this: "It will be essential that your major investment office continues to assist global investors in taking their projects from an idea to completion. Our government has committed to working with our private sector union partners to ensure our labour code meets the needs of employees as well as those who want to invest in our province."

My question is: what does it actually mean when you say that the government "has committed to working with our private sector union partners to ensure that our labour code meets the needs of employees as well as those who want to invest in our province"?

[1520]

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, this ministry has a lot of work ahead of it, probably partly because we have such a fantastic opportunity ahead of us. We get to be part of the driving force behind the Premier's agenda for a strong economy.

We believe it's critical that we have a constructive dialogue with unions, whether they're public or private sector. We intend to engage in a very collaborative way with unions, both public and private. We are in the process of shaping what that workplan might look like, but primarily, we're going to have a conversation. We're going to talk about the things that are important, especially as we look at an ever-growing workforce in this province.

As I shared with the member yesterday, I only had to look at the task force report from the natural gas working group to suggest that there are going to be a lot of workers in this province, and working with our unions in a constructive way is important. What we intend to do is maintain the principle of balance in the workplace, ensuring that workers' rights are protected and ensuring that there is a balance between the needs of employers but protecting worker rights.

I look forward to having a conversation with private
[ Page 1069 ]
sector unions. I think it's important. We're going to see a lot more workers over the next number of years in this province.

H. Bains: I always love to hear the enthusiasm that comes through the minister, coming from the Premier. "Yeah, pretty soon we'll be debt-free. Pretty soon all the taxes will be gone. Pretty soon you will have nothing to worry about. You don't have to work, and everything will be there. Don't worry about it. We will have millions and millions of jobs, and we will have billions and billions of dollars coming." Of course, we'll see.

But my question….

A Voice: We will.

H. Bains: Oh yeah, of course we'll see. I think, hopefully, my children and their children and their children and their children and their children probably will be reading Hansard and say: "Hey, you know, we're still waiting. Where is it?" I won't be around, and the minister won't be around to answer that question. But anyway, that's the position that the government takes, and fair enough.

My question was very specific. The minister says she will meet and have dialogue with unions, public or private. But this one specifically talks about private sector union partners. It does not talk about unions; it talks about private sector unions. So my question is: what is the purpose behind this? Why only talk to private sector unions? Why is that commitment only to the private sector unions and the minister is saying something different? Why is there difference between the Premier's direction and what the minister is saying?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, British Columbians were also enthusiastic, I think, about the plan we laid out for the future. The member opposite will see….

A Voice: Sure. Sure.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, you know what? The skepticism is one of the reasons that British Columbians chose a government that actually believes in a positive and strong economy for the future of this province. In fact, what they believe in is sustainable economic resource development. Boy, I can tell you, the people in my part of the province were pretty excited about that, and I think the outcomes of May 14 would demonstrate that.

[1525]

I think that the member opposite…. I'm not certain why he would be so overtly concerned about the fact that you have a government that wants to work constructively with private sector unions. As I just said to the member opposite, I don't see that as exclusive.

In fact, I have worked very constructively, as I pointed out to the member opposite yesterday, with Jim Sinclair and the B.C. Federation of Labour on matters of significant importance, including the effectiveness of Bill C-45. I look very much forward to continuing that productive work with Mr. Sinclair and other members of public sector unions.

The fact of the matter is that we're also going to have a dialogue with private sector unions to talk about the workforce that's needed for British Columbia. In fact, the member opposite yesterday was critical of the fact that we've seen private sector jobs disappearing, from his perspective. We certainly have a challenge there. We're seeing public sector jobs increasing. We're going to have a conversation with private sector unions in this province in a constructive way, and it certainly does not mean to the exclusion of public sector unions.

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister could tell me what's written in here. The instructions are very clear. It comes from the Premier of the province, and they don't simply willy-nilly put some words in here. People working for the Premier have gone over and over it before these words go on a piece of paper. It talks about, specifically, private sector union partners. It does not talk about union partners.

Is the minister saying that the Premier made a mistake here? Or is this the intention? If this is the intention — only to work with private sector unions, not to include the public sector unions — I'd like to get that clarified. Is the Premier wrong? Or is the minister saying it's misspelled or, you know, she missed out or misspoke? What is it here? What is the purpose of only mentioning here "working with…private sector union partners"?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, as much as the member opposite would like to portray this as the Premier saying one thing and the minister saying another, nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, we should be clear.

Our campaign was very clear. We are going to attract investment to British Columbia. That means that the private sector, actually, is going to fuel the economy in this province. That means, if you're going to have private sector investment, you're probably going to have private sector unions. I'm just thinking that, as we attract that investment, we're actually going to talk to those companies. We're going to talk about the workers we need, and it won't be at the exclusion of public sector unions. I can assure you that the Premier and I do not differ on that view at all.

Private sector investment will be the investment that the member opposite will get to watch take place over the next number of years, and I can assure him it won't be generational. It won't be three generations from now. His great-great-grandchildren won't be waiting.

Just today, as I said to the member opposite yesterday, I met with another company that is talking about their proposal for British Columbia. It involves 200 to
[ Page 1070 ]
300 permanent, full-time, well-supporting-family jobs. That's just one of the proponents that have been in my office in the last week.

H. Bains: Because of the time constraint, I can't delve too much into this, but maybe the minister could tell me…. These instructions talk about working with the private sector unions "to ensure that our labour code meets the needs of employees as well as those who want to invest" here.

My question to the minister is this: what changes are contemplated? I will put these questions together so that I don't have to repeat them again.

[1530]

What changes are being contemplated to the labour code? Why does the mandate specifically specify private sector unions if we are talking about changing the code? Are there particular unions that the government is working with? Also, would you commit to working with all unions equally?

Hon. S. Bond: I think I explained that in the first two answers, but we'll try it again. This is about a conversation with major investors who are going to bring significant infrastructure dollars — we're talking about billions of dollars of investment — to British Columbia. We are going to have a conversation with them about ensuring that there is balance in the workplace.

A priority, obviously, is protecting workers' rights. We also want to ensure that employers feel that the system that's in place works for investment in this province. There is going to be a healthy discussion about that. I'm actually looking forward to it very much. I think that the more we can work constructively with the private sector….

I will reiterate it again for the members opposite. We care about ensuring that workers have rights in British Columbia. In my view, it's not a matter of: "Let's exclude public sector unions." It's about how we ensure that there's balance in the workplace. That's the discussion we're going to have.

We have no workplan in front of us. As I said to the member opposite, we're going to start with a dialogue and talk about how we can ensure that investors feel welcome here in British Columbia.

H. Bains: I think the commitment the minister is giving is that before any changes to our labour code are made, you will have a meaningful consultation with all unions and all stakeholders and have their real, effective input before we change that. So unless the minister tells me otherwise, I take it that's what the minister is saying.

I want to move on to the minimum wage area, which is the Employment Standards Act. The previous Minister of Labour made a commitment that the government is to regularly review minimum wage. The process for doing that…. They are looking at how they will do that review, and it will be widely consultative and all that other stuff that she said.

My question to the minister is this. Minimum wage was raised a while ago now. Is there a review underway? Is the government looking at raising the minimum wage again? If the answer is yes, when and by how much?

[1535]

Hon. S. Bond: At this point there hasn't been a formal review process determined. As minister, obviously, I'm going to have to review the history of the discussion around that matter. What I do note is that British Columbia actually finds itself in a very competitive place at this point in time.

The member opposite, I'm sure, is well aware of the fact that the final increase that is in place currently took place on May 1, 2012. At $10.25 an hour, the minimum wage is now tied with Ontario and Manitoba for the second-highest among Canadian provinces. So in fact we are in a competitive position.

I think one thing gets lost in this discussion on a regular basis, and it is important. Our government did recognize the need to increase the minimum wage. In fact, we now find ourselves in a very, very competitive position with our minimum wage. The average hourly wage in British Columbia today is actually $24.26, the third-highest hourly wage in the country. And B.C.'s average hourly youth wage — so we're talking about young people in British Columbia — is $14.73 per hour, the third-highest in Canada, between Alberta and Saskatchewan.

While yes, we do have a minimum wage effective May 1, 2012, of $10.25, the average hourly wage is virtually double that.

H. Bains: I still have a number of questions on minimum wage. I have questions on foreign workers being blacklisted, in some cases, by some of the countries. I have questions about employment standards and its enforcement. If the minister agrees, if I'm able to put those questions in writing, I could get a reply in writing to those questions. Would that be all right?

Hon. S. Bond: I think the member opposite knows me well enough. We'd be happy to receive that information. We normally return it, in my ministries, in a very timely way. So we'll be happy to receive those questions.

G. Heyman: First of all, I was interested to hear the minister talking about her government's and her ministry's desire to attract investment to B.C. I want to speak a little bit and have a couple of questions with respect to an industry that the minister and others will have heard me speak about in the House, in which I have a great interest, an industry that generates about five times the number of jobs and economic activity per dollar invested
[ Page 1071 ]
than the oil and gas industry, and that's the film and television industry.

Before I go on to the questions, I want to note that it was a pleasure to walk in here earlier and reacquaint myself with some of the minister's advisers, former colleagues of mine from a number of years ago. I enjoyed the chance to get reacquainted.

[1540]

As the minister knows, in 2000 British Columbia exceeded the $1 billion mark in film and television production for the first time. The minister and her staff will know that much of the expansion of the film and television industry was fuelled by film tax labour credits, which were first introduced by the New Democrat government and expanded in later years by the B.C. Liberal government.

But we also know that in 2009 Ontario and Quebec and a number of states south of us in the United States introduced higher film tax credits as well as tax credits in another form, what's called an all-spend film tax credit — not one, by the way, that I would recommend. It doesn't focus the credit for work and labour that is actually performed within the jurisdiction granting the credit.

Nonetheless, as a result of this, B.C. has experienced a loss of work, a loss of jobs, and Ontario since that time has experienced an increase in production dollars as well as an increase in jobs. In 2011, for the first time since 2004, British Columbia fell to fourth place in North America in terms of film production, behind Ontario for the first time since 2004.

North Shore Studios, which accounts for about 20 percent of film production in British Columbia, has had its worst first quarter ever this year — about 35 percent below last year's production. Overall in British Columbia, production is about 15 percent down this year.

In response to requests from the industry and suggestions from the opposition that the government consider expanding the film tax labour credit in British Columbia, the government has claimed that the value of tax credits granted are significant already, that we can't afford to do it and that there aren't hard numbers that quantify either the tax advantage or the economic advantage from the industry.

I'm sure the minister will be aware that two weeks ago a new study was released. It was a study that was conducted by Nordicity, a company that has over 30 years experience of policy and economic analysis in the media area — the media, cultural and creative industry sector. The study was conducted and sponsored by the Motion Picture Association of Canada in collaboration with the Canadian Media Production Association.

I know that prior to the study's release, the minister's deputy received a pre-release briefing, as did I, so I assume that the ministry has had some chance to review this study over the last two weeks.

My question is this. Has the minister and ministry staff reviewed this study in any detail? And while the study doesn't provide specific figures for British Columbia — it provides them for Canada — has any attempt been made to extrapolate or consider seeking more detailed numbers that are relevant to British Columbia?

What specific measures are the ministry perhaps considering in response to this study and the fact that it demonstrates a quite significant advantage from investment to support, retain and expand production of film and television here in British Columbia so that B.C.'s highly trained workers can remain here at home with their families and so that we can grow the creative sector in B.C.?

[1545]

Hon. S. Bond: I can tell the member opposite that while it's fantastic to have this ministry, one of the areas I'm very interested in, perhaps in many ways more than others, is the whole area of film. I think that government sent a very strong message to the film industry when it actually moved what is a strong driver of the economy to an economic ministry. Film is now in, I believe, a great place for it to be. It's in an economic ministry. In fact, I've actually been meeting with people in the industry as recently as this morning.

First of all, I appreciate very much the member's interest and familiarity with the film industry. I will point out that decisions around tax credits are the purview of the Finance Minister, and ministers don't monkey with tax credits when that is the Finance Minister's purview. But I can say this. British Columbia has, even with our government, demonstrated significant support for the film industry, and while there was a very passionate and animated debate about the effectiveness of tax credits prior to the election in particular, we do need to look at some of the facts.

British Columbia budgeted last year…. When you look at the film tax credit budget, the budget in this budget is moving from $287 million to $340 million of support for the film industry in British Columbia. I can't think there are very many British Columbians who do not believe that $340 million of support is not significant.

Now, are there challenges? Absolutely, and I'm very much looking forward to working in a very collaborative way with the film industry, certainly to increase my knowledge and awareness. I've had a lot of help from members on our side who are advocates for the film industry.

I also think we should look at some numbers, because one of the things that we talk about is the gap between Ontario and British Columbia. In 2012, while yes, we still trail Ontario, the gap is actually closing. British Columbia production numbers increased by $27 million. Ontario increased by $11 million. So while we're not comparable yet, and we're not equal, the gap closed. We are seeing that gap closing.

The other encouraging note that I have, as I'm begin-
[ Page 1072 ]
ning to better understand the file, is that our production numbers are actually up if you compare June to June — June last year to June this year. Production numbers are at 24 this year. Last year they were at 22.

My hope is that as we have a discussion about the film industry, we would put it in the context of 340 million taxpayer dollars in British Columbia supporting the film industry. An important economic driver? Absolutely. Skilled workforce? Fantastic. The ability to innovate? Better than most. So we're going to work constructively.

Today I'm not in a position, and neither is the…. The Finance Minister will discuss and deal with the issue of tax credits. He is taking an approach with our counterparts across the country. But in fact, we are seeing the gap close. We are increasing our budget in this budget to $340 million.

G. Heyman: I'm sure the minister is concerned about this industry, wants to see it grow and knows what a significant job generator this industry is. First of all, let me address a couple of points that the minister made.

[1550]

While it is true that there are significant tax credits being granted, first of all, my reading of the estimates gives a figure of $325 million, not $340 million.

Also, it's more important to note that that figure includes tax credits to the digital media sector, which is not actually part of what I'm raising in this discussion. So that lowers the number a little bit.

Production is up and down, but the fact remains that British Columbia is still in fourth place, that British Columbia lost significant numbers of jobs and production dollars in 2011, that production is down this year, that our biggest studio had its worst first quarter ever and that many of us have friends who work in the industry who are away from their families today as they seek to make a living. At some point they will make the decision to take their experience, their skills training with them.

We run the risk, if infrastructure that has been built up over time in British Columbia stands idle, that it will in fact be turned to other purposes. Some of the infrastructure is owned by land development companies. If there is more money in that than in renting out sound stages, that is a risk we face. If we lose the infrastructure, certainly the industry will be under even greater threat.

Let me just go to some of the numbers that were contained in the study that I referenced, a study called The Economic Contribution of the Film and Television Sector in Canada, and reiterate again that this has a job multiplier factor of about five times, for instance, the oil and gas industry.

The study found that in 2011, $20.4 billion in economic activity in Canada was generated by the industry. That's direct, indirect and induced jobs. And $12.8 billion of that was in labour income. This translated to 262,700 full-time-equivalent jobs across the full value chain and 132,500 in film and television direct production jobs.

Now, these figures are for Canada as a whole, but B.C.'s share of production in 2011 was about 27 percent. I understand that there are some differences, but one could extrapolate some pretty healthy numbers for British Columbia from dollars invested.

Here's another point that I'd really like the minister to pay careful attention to and bring back to cabinet. The industry contributed $2.65 billion in provincial taxes. Now, 27 percent of that…. I know there's some difference in provincial tax structures across the country, but we're looking at a figure for B.C. production share of about 27 percent. That would be over $700 million.

If, as I say, the B.C. government granted $288 million in tax credits for film and TV — or even if, as the minister says, it was $340 million — this is still a net advantage to the province and the taxpayers of B.C.

My question is: now that there are hard numbers that demonstrate an even greater overall economic advantage and tax advantage than we previously knew about, will the minister ask her ministry staff to carefully review these studies, to break them down if the government needs further information about specific British Columbia advantages?

If the numbers bear out what I claim they bear out and what the industry claims they bear out, will the minister please consider taking this important information to cabinet and the Finance Minister, to revisit the issue of the value of tax credits to British Columbia film and television industry workers as well as the many small businesses, suppliers, film-induced tourism workers and construction jobs that depend on this industry?

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the member's comments, as I said, about what is an important economic sector. I think the fact that we've put film in a ministry that's dealing with the economy is a pretty good start.

To the member's question about the budget, on page 178 of the blue book…. When the member has time, he can note the changes. Production services tax credits are $270.5 million. The film and television tax credits are $70 million. Those are really big numbers. The interactive digital media tax credit is actually in addition to that. That's an additional $35 million.

[1555]

So the film and television tax credit and the production services tax credit are $340 million in this budget. British Columbians, I'm sure, would see that as a significant contribution and recognition that there is a robust film industry in the province.

As I said to the member, I'm very much looking forward to working with the industry. I made it one of the first meetings that I felt was a priority for me. The Nordicity study was actually provided to me by one of our MLAs who is a passionate advocate for the film industry. The staff has already taken that report, has met
[ Page 1073 ]
with industry officials about it. We will, of course, take a look at that report.

One of the messages I got from the industry, as well, was that it's not all about tax credits. It's an important component, but British Columbia has some pretty amazing advantages when it comes to attracting productions, and the nature of productions is changing as well. Yes, the large major production segment may be seeing some reductions, but the fact of the matter is that the industry is changing.

I heard about it this very morning — that in fact there is much more use of green screen technology, of special effects, those kinds of things. I believe that British Columbia has an enormous advantage in that field because we have people with expertise and innovation. I learned about a company this morning whose work is unbelievable.

British Columbia also, as the member has pointed out, has the second-largest film and television labour force in Canada. Our infrastructure is well developed. In fact, one of the key factors is that it has the largest net studio space in Canada. So there are a number of other factors that productions, I'm sure, consider as they choose where they're going to locate.

I don't profess to be an expert in film. I've had the file for about a month. But I can tell you that I do see it as an important driver of our economy. It is a job creator. Also, though, I think British Columbians deserve the whole story. There are many industries that would look at…. When I look at fiscal, the actual payments that were made in tax credits last year to film and television, it was $352 million — our actuals last year — and, on top of that, $26 million for interactive digital media. That's not a comment about whether that's good or bad. It's just the facts.

I intend to learn as much as I can about the file, to work constructively with people who are involved in the film industry. I demonstrated that by meeting very early…. In fact, today I met with a number of key individuals in the sector.

I appreciate the member's interest. Our staff is working constructively and looking at the Nordicity report. I think British Columbia has a lot to offer in terms of film, digital media.

I should just perhaps end my rather lengthy answer here with some comments about what else we've committed to. We made it very clear in our platform that we wanted to see what else we could do constructively with the film industry.

One of the important things was establishing a film office in Los Angeles and looking at international presence at regional film commissions.

There was also a commitment to look at film and television tax credit adjustments. Those are fondly known as DAVE, some of the post-production credits which I think the industry has been looking at for some time.

The other commitment we made was to work with Ontario and Quebec to look at how we talk about film incentives and the policies across Canada. The lead on that would be the Minister of Finance. And also a one-stop shop for investors that are looking to start new digital ventures in British Columbia.

Certainly, we were very specific in our platform and, I think, demonstrated our commitment to working with the film industry.

The Chair: Perhaps we could take a break for five minutes, if people wish. Recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:59 p.m. to 4:05 p.m.

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

D. Routley: Welcome to the minister, and thank you for this opportunity to ask questions about the subject of skills training and apprenticeships in the province, which of course is a really important issue to the economy. It was one of the four pillars of the throne speech in terms of economic forecasting and planning.

I'd like to ask the minister some questions about her mandate letter from the Premier. On page 2 of the mandate letter I'll read from the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs.

"The role played by the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training is key to the economic success of our province. For the first time in our history, we will not be able to fill the jobs we will have available in our province through the British Columbia labour pool alone. While we will need talented individuals from outside B.C. and likely Canada, we want to make sure that British Columbians are first in line for jobs of today and tomorrow. That is the central role of the skills-training agenda of your ministry."

Now, the notion that British Columbians should be first in line is something that I think every British Columbian would expect. The process to enter that line, though, is a lengthy one, with apprenticeships taking anywhere from a couple of years, if people have experience, to four years or more, if they can't coordinate their release times from their employment.

The B.C. Liberal record when it comes to planning and structuring trades training going back to 2002, when they restructured the system, has been one of failure, unfortunately, where completions have taken a steep decline. And that decline continues until this day.

Warnings were ignored. The government listened to Phil Hochstein and his plans for the trades and apprenticeship system and compartmentalized that system in an effort to make it more flexible. What happened is that workers were not able to complete their apprenticeships without proper support and without adequate planning.

The warnings that the government received at the time — on a trip to New Zealand, to look at the compartmentalized system there — were to not push stakeholders away from the table, not push labour from the table. That's indeed what government did. The warnings were that this
[ Page 1074 ]
compartmentalized system would in fact cost more to implement but could offer flexibility. But funding for that system was immediately cut by 30 percent.

So that's the record, as I see it. The performance has been quite dismal, and it's been referred to as eight lost years before there was a bit of a turnaround. My question to the minister is: what now? What is the minister going to do with her ministry in order to recover from this period of low completion rates and a lack of planning?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I don't think anyone will be surprised that I have a very different perspective of the system and the success and whether or not it's working. In fact, we should look at some of the numbers, because I think that will be a very telling factor.

If you look at the number of apprentices that are currently registered in the system, there are currently 35,000 registered apprentices. That is almost double the number of apprentices registered that we had just a short number of years ago. Last year in British Columbia there were a record number of qualified tradespersons who entered B.C.'s labour market. So in fact, we had a record number of them. And 8,750 certificates of qualifications were issued. That is a record in British Columbia.

[1610]

Seat capacity in our apprenticeship programs has increased by 19 percent over the last six years, from 18,098 spaces in 2005-2006 to more than 21,000 in 2012-2013. We have continued to invest. In fact, we've seen additional aboriginal apprentices. We have more women in the workforce than we ever have in the history of British Columbia.

There is, undoubtedly, a challenge facing us as we see unprecedented economic opportunity. The mandate letter makes it clear. My job in many ways is to quarterback the work that's being done by all of the ministries who have a focus on ensuring we have a skilled workforce. That would include Advanced Education, Education, working closely with my colleagues to ensure we have the skills-training plan we need.

Again, we won't be doing that alone. We'll be doing it in partnership with the industry, with post-secondary education. But again, I view the track record quite differently than the member opposite.

D. Routley: I'm not surprised that the minister would see it differently. But you know, those numbers need to be drilled into a little bit. Registration of 35,000 apprenticeships is something very different than registration of apprenticeships before this dismantling of this system.

In fact, before the restructuring of the system occurred, an apprentice was kept as registered for six months without any contact or continuation of their program. Now that's been extended to 18 months.

The registration also includes introductory trades programs in high schools, where the continuation into the apprenticeship program is a much lower percentage than those who would enter as adult workers seeking an apprenticeship. It's a good thing to encourage apprenticeships within high schools, but to count them as true registrations and then keep them as registrations for 18 months highly distorts the results.

The seat capacity numbers may have increased, but the funding for operation and the funding to support students has decreased. One of the significant losses in that decrease of support was the counsellors for apprentices, who kept the apprentices on track with their training, who worked with employers to ensure releases. Those things aren't happening anymore. That's resulting in what we see as an abysmal completion rate in British Columbia that has now sunk to 35 percent.

You can contrast that with the roughly 50 percent of apprentices who are being trained in the labour schools, where the completion rates are 90 percent plus. So the 35 percent can even be diminished when you consider just those apprentices who are outside the labour schools. Those, in fact, are the stakeholders who were pushed from the plan.

The mandate letter says that the role of the ministry is to ensure that we are training the right people for the right jobs. How on earth can we be sure that we are doing that when we don't even know whether apprentices are continuing their training, because they stay on the books for 18 months?

There are no audits that I'm aware of that have been done to determine whether apprentices are completing their training or whether they are being trained in the right field. So we're essentially flying blind, and the minister is being asked to assemble another skills plan — this one for ten years.

I'd like to ask the minister: how, without adequate information, can her ministry possibly make the connection between right people and right jobs and right training? What happened to the last skills-training plan?

Hon. S. Bond: What the ministry can do is exactly the work that it has begun and is working on. Just yesterday in British Columbia — and it received very positive feedback already — one of the products of a working group that's dealing with natural gas actually reported out.

Government had the foresight to put a task force together, a working group, of major proponents and industry representatives who worked diligently to create a document which outlines for the province what their employment needs are going to be. Not only does it include numbers; it includes a list of the types of occupations that will be required.

[1615]

That is exactly the kind of work that we need to do in partnership with industry. They did a fantastic job of laying out what the expectations are, and we now need to match up the opportunities.
[ Page 1075 ]

One of the things that matters to me a great deal is that people are trained closer to where they live. It's been something that this government has made a priority, and we're going to continue to look at how we train people closer to the projects, where they are going to take place.

All of the work that's done in labour market assessment is about forecasts. They are the best people that we can gather to look at what the potential impacts of investment will be and then to create that road map.

So of course we're going to look at a ten-year skills-training plan that is refreshed. Five years ago not very many people were talking about liquefied natural gas. Today we're talking about nine proponents — a minimum of nine proponents, thousands of jobs. In fact, the report that was provided yesterday laid out the fact that at peak construction we need 60,000 workers in British Columbia.

What I am most encouraged by is the fact that industry and the groups that participated in that study are very prepared to work with us in innovative ways. In fact, today they talked to me about how we could actually contemplate training a person during the course of that buildout so that over a four-year cycle…. Where that plant is being created, we could actually train someone from beginning to end during that four-year cycle. I think that's exactly the kind of innovation that we've been asked to look for in this ministry.

D. Routley: I would characterize what has occurred as hindsight more than foresight. If the government had been using foresight, then years ago — a decade ago — these plans would have been in place. In fact, the government was warned at that time just the degree to which we would be short of skilled workers in this province, particularly in industries that exist, like the forest industry.

Forest industry executives repeatedly call on the government to invest in skills training and characterize the skills shortage as the number one deterrent to future success of that industry, yet the government has failed to meet that test through its plans or its actions.

It's one thing to plan, but it's another thing entirely to deliver on a plan. And what has happened, in fact, is we've seen a continued decline in completions in all of the skilled trades.

We have building trades where apprentices have not completed their training because of the compartmentalization of the system. Now that residential construction has declined, those trained in that are partially trained in residential construction and can't make the jump to industrial construction. That's the result of poor planning and a lack of foresight.

Now, the foresight that the minister is claiming is foresight for an industry that doesn't yet exist. She claims that nine proponents equal something that we can plan for, with a foundational expectation that that will materialize. She talks about 60,000 new skilled tradespersons being needed, yet our completion rates will in no way come close to meeting that requirement.

The mandate letter says that the minister is responsible for a refreshed jobs plan and ambitious goals to continue that jobs plan and to review the role and function of the Industry Training Authority. All of this refreshment and all of this renewal, yet there's no plan.

The minister is talking about assembling a plan now. That's hindsight. Foresight would have seen this government implement a plan years ago that could meet these requirements that they have been put on notice of. What will the minister do to catch up and really put British Columbians at the front of the line for employment?

Hon. S. Bond: We'll just start with a few statistics here. At the height of apprenticeship in the 1990s…. I could point out that the largest number of apprentices that I can actually see here on the chart was — hmm, let me think — 15,353. Today in British Columbia we have 35,000 of them. That didn't happen by accident. It happened because we've made a concentrated effort to invest and to plan.

[1620]

We should be very clear that government invests over $100 million annually in industry training, and that's through the Industry Training Authority alone. That is $35 million, or 50 percent higher than was provided in 2000-2001.

Let's look at some of the people that have been impacted by the plan that we've had in place. The member may want to scoff at these numbers, but I think that the people who have benefited certainly won't.

Aboriginal participation in apprenticeship technical training has doubled since 2006-2007. We made a concentrated effort to look at how we can incorporate and include First Nations British Columbians in the skills-training plan. Their numbers have doubled in the apprenticeship system.

In terms of women, when we look at apprentices, 10 percent of all registered apprentices are currently women. That's up 8 percent from 2009 alone. Again, that doesn't happen by happenstance. It happens because we've had a plan, and we are seeing it pay benefits.

When we talk about looking to the future…. As I said to the member opposite, no one was talking about liquefied natural gas a number of years ago. We have unprecedented opportunity that is evolving. As that demand and that interest in investment increases in the province, obviously you have to shape a training plan to meet that need.

Does it mean that a plan didn't exist? Of course not. What it means is we have to look realistically at the future, what the possibilities are. Even since the time that the LNG discussion…. That discussion — we need to give credit where credit is due — was led by our Premier. She is the person who recognized the importance and has ac-
[ Page 1076 ]
tually attracted the kind of discussion that is taking place.

Since we've started talking about it, the number of proponents has virtually doubled in the province. That means you have to continue to reinvigorate and refresh a plan. Does it mean one didn't exist? Absolutely not.

D. Routley: Well, comparing numbers of apprentices from the '90s to now may suit the minister politically, but in terms of relevancy…. We've got double the size of GDP, practically, since the number that she quoted, and so does the rest of this country. We would have an expectation that we would have more apprentices and more people in the workforce and a larger population.

When it comes to funding trades training, the reductions to the core training plan — 10 percent over the past two years — have staggered institutions in terms of being able to deliver on their promise to the province in terms of training people and young people in this province.

Could the minister recount for me the funds transferred to the ITA for the past four years and projecting the next two years?

[1625]

Hon. S. Bond: We don't have the numbers here, obviously, for four years previous, because we're trying to discuss the estimates for this year's budget looking forward. But I can tell the member that since 2010 the core budget for the Industry Training Authority has been $94.444 million. That has been consistent each year. And then it is supplemented by additional funding from the labour market agreement. The amount for 2013-2014 will be $109 million, and in 2012-2013 it was $108 million.

D. Routley: Well, can the minister explain how this support can be maintained when the federal funding is now in question and will likely not be available? These soft funds that topped up the province's investment will likely evaporate. What plans does the minister have to compensate for that loss?

Hon. S. Bond: The money from the federal government hasn't evaporated. In fact, we are just at the very beginning of a process where we will be…. The federal government has made it clear. They intend to sign and continue their commitment. The question is how those funds are allocated and how the programs will be designed, and I'm looking forward to a constructive discussion. It's obviously a priority for us. I've had an opportunity to speak with Minister Kenney once already, and I'm sure we'll have numerous conversations. We are confident that the federal government has committed to renewing. The question is what it looks like, and we'll be an active participant in that negotiation.

D. Routley: Trades Training B.C. wrote a letter to the former minister, the hon. Pat Bell, and another minister, a government member from Richmond. He made note that the amount of core funding for the public trades training plan has been shrinking since 2010-11. As noted:

"These reductions have been supplemented with one-time soft money from either the labour market development agreement or labour market agreement sources. We are concerned that at a time when government's labour forecast identifies a significant skills gap, starting primarily in 2016, rather than building for the capacity to produce more skilled workers, we are in fact reducing capacity.

"The skills challenge before the province is monumental, and it calls for bold action and increased investment in trades training. We encourage government to take a multi-year, planned approach that builds trades training capacity to match industry's needs for skilled workers, and we hope the 2013 budget will start to reflect such a plan."

In fact, the budget did not begin to reflect such a plan. In fact, everything that Mr. Jim Reed, who wrote this letter to the ministers, mentioned has in fact come to pass without a response from government in budget.

He goes on to say: "Current and projected trades training funding for 2013-2014 is not keeping pace with operating and delivery costs of our institutions."

That's the message coming from the people doing the training to the government — not the message from me, not the message from the NDP. How does the minister respond to those concerns?

[1630]

Hon. S. Bond: The minister responds by…. As we have been very, very public about as a government, the government today invests $1.9 billion in post-secondary education — $1.9 billion of taxpayers' money.

[G. Hogg in the chair.]

When we look at what the Ministry of Jobs and Tourism spends on labour market programs, we spend $203 million. When we look at what we provide in labour market programs, we also add $540 million. The total amount that we spend supporting skills and economic success in terms of our ministry is $631 million.

One of the things that I will be looking forward to having a conversation about with Mr. Reed and others is the fact that our letter talks very clearly about aligning the training needs with the jobs that are in demand for today and in the future. So we are going to have a discussion about the investments that are made by British Columbians — record levels of funding in post-secondary. And we're spending hundreds of millions of dollars in training.

What we're going to do is take that very plan that the member was asking about — where we need mechanics and pipefitters and engineers, and we need a work group that's being identified by industry as we speak — and we're going to make sure that our training dollars are aligned with the jobs that we need, where we need them. We need to be training people in the regions of
[ Page 1077 ]
the province where, in fact, those jobs are going to be in the vast majority.

So it is about significant investment. We're doing that. It is about aligning needs with geography and also with programming, and we're going to do that too.

The Chair: Member.

D. Routley: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome to the meeting.

Politics is all about words, and politics is all about numbers being turned one way or the other. If the minister wants to talk about all the investments in post-secondary institutions, she's rolling in capital spending. She's not, in fact, talking about the funds that support the delivery of programs to apprenticeships and to skilled trainees.

In fact, institutions are still being paid the same weekly rates per student as they were in 2001. So here we are 12 years later, and the government is still spending per student the same amount they were in 2001. How does the minister expect that institutions can cope with the inflation — in many cases pushed onto them by agreements signed by her own government — with funding per student that hasn't risen since 2001?

Hon. S. Bond: I'll certainly double-check this, and I always welcome being corrected, if I'm incorrect. But $1.9 billion in post-secondary education is actually block operating funding. Capital projects are in addition to that. In fact, it's $1.9 billion.

So how are we going to work with technical training capacity? To the member's point, 27,000 training seats for apprenticeship and foundation training will be available in 2013-2014. To the member's point, that's an increase of 2 percent over last year's training seats. So they're actually going up.

One of the things we found was that institutions didn't spend their entire training budget last year and returned some of those dollars to the Industry Training Authority. We need to actually have a discussion with them about that situation as well. If they have training funds that aren't being expended, we need to figure out why those were returned.

The Industry Training Authority also has an annual contingency fund. So in fact, if there are industry-specific training needs or issues that need to be dealt with quickly, the ITA sets aside a contingency fund to respond very quickly.

[1635]

So we continue to add dollars to the system, but we recognize that now we have to actually have a conversation with institutions about innovation and about how we're going to work constructively with industry to be creative about how people are trained in this province.

One of the things that's been very successful is making sure young people get a chance to start their trades-training careers and options much earlier than post–grade 12. That's the kind of initiative we're looking at, with the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Advanced Education as partners.

D. Routley: Jim Reed, who's secretary to the board of Trades Training B.C., in his letter says that in fact, institutions are being paid the same weekly rates per student since 2001. That's a big issue.

Now, the minister can talk about billions of dollars and millions of dollars, but what really counts for program delivery is how much the institution gets to support each student. That hasn't changed since 2001. So the institutions are having to dilute, in effect, their support for students. This is a big concern. When we frame this issue in those terms, I think people understand that that's a big problem.

Whether or not the government is spending $1.9 billion, $1.8 billion, $2.1 billion — really, they can't wrap their heads around it. But they can wrap their heads around the fact that an institution is being funded per student at the same rate today as it was 12 years ago. That's a problem.

What will the minister do to address that situation?

Hon. S. Bond: I understand that the ITA has offered to reach out to those institutions that have concerns of that nature. But for the member opposite to say that we talk about billions of dollars and that that really isn't the issue, that it's how much they get per student…. I think it's a bigger issue than that.

Taxpayers in British Columbia are investing billions of dollars in training, and we're simply saying to institutions: "Let's make sure that it's as efficient as possible, that we are aligning the spending of those dollars with the needs of tomorrow."

We need pipefitters in British Columbia. We need engineers. We need people who are going to help us make sure that LNG becomes a reality in this province.

We are more than willing to sit down and have a conversation with Mr. Reed and others who have those concerns. I'm advised that in fact, the Industry Training Authority has already reached out to say: "Come and have a conversation with us. We're going to talk about how we can be innovative, how we can be creative and how we can ensure that we have the kinds of training in place that we need to meet the increased demands of an industry that literally is going to have some very significant requirements."

D. Routley: I think the Chair would probably have been present when I have debated in the past the Education estimates with the former Minister of Education, now the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training. At that time, per-student funding was a pretty important thing
[ Page 1078 ]
in her speaking notes on education funding.

In fact, it was all about per-student funding. Districts would say: "Look, we're in a deficit. We've got all these costs downloaded to us from the ministry. We can't possibly cope." They were told: "You have the most per-student funding ever." So that meant a lot then.

It is kind of a handy number, because people can really wrap their minds around what that means in their life as a trainee or as a taxpayer supporting trainees. They can see that in fact, the amount of funds devoted to supporting a student in trades training today is identical to that in 2001. That's kind of a fact that we can't escape.

[1640]

Yes, it's magnanimous of the taxpayer to support the whole big total number, but it's impossible for that taxpayer to really quantify what that means in terms of delivering to each student. They can understand the per-student funding is a problem when it hasn't risen since 2001.

This letter from the Trades Training B.C. organization also points out that institutions have become dependent on the soft funding from the labour market agreement funds from the federal government. The criteria for that funding is very rigid. In fact, some of the qualifications and the failure to be able to meet those qualifications have been the reason that some of these funds have been returned, both to the federal government — since the labour market agreement funds need to be returned — and to the provincial government.

The public training institutions do not have the flexibility to absorb that risk. That component of their funding is considered by them in their accounting as a risk. That risk is not adequately taken care of by this government's funding in this present budget, or in future projections.

In fact, the institutions have been told to plan for status-quo budgets in the coming years. So what does the minister have to say to those public institutions carrying that risk, delivering training to students at the same per-student funding rate as 2001, according to this letter?

Hon. S. Bond: Let's just take a walk through a couple of institutions in British Columbia in terms of government's investments.

Let's take a look, for example, at Camosun College. Annual operating grants in 2001 were $37.1 million. Today they are $51.8 million, an increase of 39 percent. Their student spaces have increased by 674, or 10.4 percent.

Let's take a look at the College of New Caledonia — a place I'm very familiar with. Annual operating grants have increased by $7.2 million, or 32 percent. Their student spaces have increased by 278, or 9.6 percent.

North Island College. Their grants have increased by 25.7 percent, and their seats have gone up by 5.5 percent. I could continue the list, but in respect of the time that the members opposite have, I won't do that. But the fact of the matter is there has been a concentrated and strategic effort to invest in post-secondary institutions across British Columbia. While I can understand that $1.9 billion is a big number, it is a record investment in post-secondary education.

We are, for the first time in British Columbia, training doctors outside of the Lower Mainland. We have innovative training programs all across this province, and we will continue to look for ways to work constructively.

As I said, I would be happy to have a personal conversation at some point with Mr. Reed and his colleagues about the letter that he sent. Happy to have that discussion. But clearly, what we want in British Columbia is the opportunity for alignment of funding dollars to the kinds of training that is necessary so that we can make sure that projects of the magnitude of the LNG industry are successful.

I look forward to having a discussion with Mr. Reed about the concerns he's expressed.

D. Routley: Again, the big, total numbers are fantastic, especially when we emphasize the "b" in billions and say they are billions of dollars. But in fact, per student, it's the same rate as it was in 2001.

That's very meaningful for the people and the institutions supporting those people. The numbers that the minister has read out are numbers of increase over a 12-year period. So if in a 12-year period we've seen a 27 percent increase, that does not even equate — or may barely equate — to the basic inflation rate.

If we're looking at trying to increase our output of skilled tradespeople, how will we do that without increasing our investment? Innovation is important, but really, eventually, it comes down to the bottom line: you have to support the students.

[1645]

In '01 an institution was receiving the same weekly funding per student as they are now. That seems ridiculous. In fact, it's driving institutions to have to reduce the number of weeks that they allow for certain trades-training programs, thereby diluting the end product.

That's the key that the minister has failed to acknowledge here: that per student…. This was a very important ratio to the minister when she was Education Minister — per-student funding. Per-student funding per week is the same as it was in '01. How can the institutions be expected to put out more product — skilled tradespeople — without an increase in support?

Hon. S. Bond: As I answered the first two times, I'm looking forward to having a constructive dialogue with Mr. Reed about the information that he provided.

The facts are the facts. We provide millions of dollars of training to post-secondary institutions, but in fact, they're not the only trainers, and 80 percent of apprenticeship isn't done in post-secondary institutions. It's
[ Page 1079 ]
actually done on the jobsite with industry. So I'm looking forward to creating an even more aggressive agenda where we work with industry to find ways to be creative.

I don't think the member opposite was here when I spoke earlier about one of the proponents, for example, who today talked about the ability to train people throughout the course of building an LNG facility in British Columbia. I think it's a fantastic opportunity.

We are going to look at a multitude of approaches. Currently, as I said, 80 percent of apprentices are not trained in post-secondary institutions. So while they play a critical role — and we look forward to working with the Minister of AVED and institutions to align spending to ensure that it meets the job demands of the future — we're going to look for other creative partnerships, including with industry.

D. Routley: Perhaps some of what the minister just answered would explain the absolutely dismal record of the government in recruiting businesses to support apprentices. In fact, the dismantling of this system in B.C. over the past decade — we're now seeing the effects of it. This government had Phil Hochstein in their ear telling them: "Dilute it. Make it simpler, easier for employers, and everything will be good."

We're seeing the result of that. We're seeing the fact that this province lags other provinces in completions. Across the country the average of completions is about 50 percent. In Alberta it's 78 percent. In B.C. it's less than half of that; it's 35 percent right now. In our union labour schools in the province it's over 90 percent.

If the government had listened to the stakeholders ten years ago, we wouldn't be facing the challenge we are now. If the government had really materialized its words with support within the system, we wouldn't be facing the challenge we are now — a government trying to pretend that it has foresight when it's scrambling to make up for a mess that it in fact created.

I'll have more questions further on about the comparison between this province's investments and Alberta's investments and their system. But right now I'd like to ask the minister about completions.

[1650]

Given the fact that the current completion rate in this province is somewhere between 35 and 37 percent, and Alberta is at 78 percent, and that union trade schools graduate apprentices at a rate of over 90 percent, what will this minister do to make up for the lost decade in trades-training completions in this province?

Hon. S. Bond: I am hardly going to hear critical comments from the member opposite, who…. The last time his members were in government there was zero plan to train health care professionals in British Columbia, and we are still paying a price in northern British Columbia for that.

This government had the foresight to create a skills-training plan that sees nurses and doctors and technicians trained in northern British Columbia for the first time in the history of this province. This government has had a substantive skills-training agenda, and if the member opposite wants to stand and denigrate an individual by name in this House, that's very unfortunate.

We're going to continue to work with industry constructively. We are going to continue to create a skills-training plan that meets the needs of British Columbians, as we have for the past 12 years.

We should talk about completion rates, because we want the member to get it correct on the record. Stats Canada completion rates show the province of British Columbia's completion rate at above the Canadian average. It is at 54 percent. If the member would like to continue to compare Alberta and British Columbia, he should be aware of the fact by now that in fact, the models are completely different. We are comparing apples and oranges.

While that may be something that's convenient for the member opposite, what we really need to grapple with in Canada is why the completion rate for apprentices is lower than it should be. It is a national issue. It is not British Columbia's issue alone. And I would be happy to have my staff provide a briefing on the difference between the Alberta and B.C. models so that we can clarify once and for all that those numbers are inaccurate.

Our completion rates, and yes…. Am I happy about the fact that they're 54 percent? No, I am not, and we're going to work to improve that. But we are above the national average. Alberta has a different model than British Columbia, and one of the things we're going to work on is: how do we support apprentices so that they can be successful?

As I've spoken with LNG proponents, for example, they're very interested in working with us on exactly this issue. They want to bring apprentices and work them, as I said, through their four-year buildout cycle. I think that's just a new opportunity.

Alberta and British Columbia have different methods of measuring, and our completion rate is at 54 percent.

D. Routley: You know, we have another difference. Alberta has invested in this sector of training and has worked with industry to keep the equipment for training up to date. It's at an absolutely pathetic, out-of-date level in this province, where trainees are being trained on obsolete equipment.

We have seen the result of this already in this province, with the northwest transmission line being over $340 million over budget. It's $340 million over budget, and the number one reason given for that by B.C. Hydro is that they have had to bring skilled workers from far and wide to complete the work. That has increased the cost. So we're seeing the result of that already in that project.
[ Page 1080 ]

This government has staked its entire future and perhaps the future of the province on an industry that has yet to be developed — the natural gas industry. Hopefully, that will come to fruition to some degree.

But Australia, where a lack of skilled tradespeople is bedevilling that economy and that natural gas industry, has become the number one most expensive jurisdiction in the world to build out natural gas facilities. In fact, they are seeing their natural gas dream evaporate in front of them with these high costs, because they don't have the skilled tradespeople to complete their projects.

This is the number one threat in the forest industry. This is the number one threat in the mining industry in B.C. And this is certainly the number one threat to the stake that the government has put on the table when it comes to the B.C. economy and liquefied natural gas.

[1655]

How many tradespeople are going to be required to construct and maintain the liquefied natural gas projects that the B.C. Liberal government has in its plans over the next ten years?

Hon. S. Bond: I would recommend that the member opposite get a copy of the report of the natural gas working group, which was actually published yesterday. It's a very thorough inventory of not only the type of workers that are needed but the numbers and in which phase.

For example, during the peak construction buildout the number of workers is around 60,000. In fact, when we look at long-term jobs, we're looking at a number of about 75,000. The working group has done, as I said earlier, a fantastic job of looking at exactly what's needed and when they're going to be needed.

In terms of outdated equipment, the government committed $75 million, actually, to making sure that trades-training facilities are upgraded — a $75 million investment recently to do that.

We continue to work, as I mentioned to the member opposite, with industry, because one of the things, as I pointed out earlier, is 80 percent of apprenticeship training takes place directly with industry. That's an important consideration. When you look at taxpayers attempting to keep up with the evolution of equipment and technology, obviously, if we can partner with industry — who have the latest and greatest — it's a very effective and efficient way to actually train workers in British Columbia.

Again, to the member opposite, while we are always happy to have a constructive discussion with our neighbours, including Alberta — and I will have a conversation with them about apprenticeship — the measures for completion are different across the provinces.

I can tell the member opposite one of the reasons the completion rates are different: Alberta doesn't count apprentices who drop out in their first year. Well, I think you can imagine that that would make a fairly substantive difference in the completion rate. So it is important when we're going to make those comparisons to ensure that it's apples to apples.

D. Routley: Yeah, we've seen the report. We know that the report indicates that during the buildout, 60,000 jobs will be produced and over 60,000 if the buildouts all occur, and that's a highly speculative proposition. But if they do, then we're looking at such a dramatic shortfall in the number of trades and apprenticeships that will be completed over that period of time in this province, that even if every single apprenticeship in the province was directed at those projects, by themselves, we would fall far short of the number required. It's inevitable, obviously, that we will have to recruit skilled trades from other jurisdictions.

It's in the interests of British Columbians and the mandate letter of the minister that they be first in line wherever possible. We need to increase the number of completions. We cannot increase the number of completions without increasing support for trades training. This government has cut that. This government has cut the support for students and programs. So how can the minister possibly suggest that she can fulfil her mandate letter from the Premier without increasing resources directed towards skills training?

Hon. S. Bond: Actually, the member is wrong. It's 27,000 training seats for apprenticeship and foundation training that will be available in 2013. This is an increase of 2 percent over last year's training seats. It's going up. In fact, we continue to invest in programs right across British Columbia.

To the member's point: he talks about investment and making sure we have upgraded equipment and putting the latest tools in students' hands. Well, let's take a look at our record of investment.

This winter, alone, we've looked at new skills-training equipment at campuses right across British Columbia. Let me start with North Island College, $662,000 to purchase equipment for their heavy-duty-equipment technician program; Thompson Rivers, $1.39 million; University of the Fraser Valley, over $620,000; College of the Rockies, over $440,000; Kwantlen, Camosun, BCIT, Okanagan College, Selkirk College, and the list goes on.

[1700]

We are aggressively pursuing renewal of equipment, ensuring that facilities are improved. We're increasing seat capacity. Most importantly, we're going to work with industry, with private providers, to make sure we have a training plan that can meet the needs of investors that want to come to British Columbia.

One of the things that I am thankful for is that British Columbians had the foresight to actually choose a government that was open to investment in British Columbia, that laid out a plan. Whether the members opposite want to be skeptical about liquefied natural gas or mines open-
[ Page 1081 ]
ing or a revitalized forest sector — we're welcoming those opportunities.

It isn't all about LNG. LNG is a critical component of this government's mandate. We laid that out for the people of British Columbia, and they said yes to LNG. But we also said yes to mining, to forestry, to revitalized sectors right across the resource development spectrum. We're going to continue to come back to British Columbians with that plan that says: "Here's the opportunity, and here's the plan."

D. Routley: You know, it's more hindsight. The government was warned for a decade that these kinds of shortages would occur, yet they haven't made the investments necessary to even begin to meet them. They've barely kept up to the basic rate of inflation. How can we increase trades training and apprenticeship completions if we do not increase the support to a degree that will allow institutions and companies to participate at a level that will actually produce a higher number of apprentices, of skilled tradespeople?

If it's not all about LNG, then why does the Residential Construction Industry Training Organization receive no funding from the Industry Training Authority?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm not aware of the specifics of the decision that the ITA made. I'm told that there was an analysis of the match of training to the capacity for those individuals to actually be hired in the industry. An analysis was done, and the grant was not renewed.

I'm obviously not aware of the specific details but happy to have a further conversation with the ITA. I'm told there was an analysis of that match between the training that is done and the industry actually hiring those individuals. A decision was made not to renew the funding.

D. Routley: Since the restructuring of the training system, the trades training has become more and more modularized. It's become a just-in-time system where a whole generation of workers have been employed in the residential construction industry but now possess skills that are not transferable to major industrial projects.

[1705]

Does the minister have a plan to improve the full-scope training of these individuals to help them meet the labour market demands of the future, including the LNG proposals?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I think there already is a plan. The whole point of modular training is so that people can take components of a trade and add them all together, at the end of the day, to get their full credentialing. What it means is — I'm using framing as an example — if you want to take the framing component, you can either choose to go and be a framer or you can take additional modular components, add them together and end up with your full credential.

You know, one of the things we need to actually talk about with the industry, with trades, with unions and with private providers, institutions…. We have to actually think about being innovative. We've got to figure out how we're going to look at moving beyond the assumption that status quo isn't going to be the answer to every single training option.

We're going to explore that type of innovation. Again, some of the very large proponents that are considering British Columbia are interested in talking to us about how they can help partner with innovative programs that would reach out to local residents, near where their projects are going to be built and with a particular emphasis on women, First Nations and persons with disabilities.

We do need to think about innovation, and the modular approach does allow people to complete with a full credential, if that's their choice.

D. Routley: Well, the modular system should allow that, but in fact, the modular system has been in large measure the cause of this problem. In fact, in framing certification, drywall-hanging certifications, less than full-scope training is exactly the reason that these workers can't transfer their skills — because they're not full Red Seal–trained tradespeople. The cutting of counsellors that supported students and of other supports to students has led to a place where these workers are now stranded in industries and cannot transfer their skills.

The minister's spin on what the compartmentalized system really should have meant might have materialized had they not cut support for students. In fact, what we have are semi-skilled workers in British Columbia, and we do not have the full-scope tradespeople that it will take to transfer from one industry to another. That is entirely the doing of this government.

What will the government do to improve the full-scope training outcomes for these individuals, who are now stranded and cannot transfer their skills because of the compartmentalized system?

Hon. S. Bond: This isn't about spin. This is about answering the questions that are provided, and I'm happy to do that and participate in this process with an entire team of people who are actually supporting me and providing information. We're here to share information as best we have it.

Those workers are being assisted, in fact. The Industry Training Authority has reached out and is helping to support those workers by ensuring that they are in with other organizations and giving them the ability to complete their training qualifications.

D. Routley: Hardly. In fact, the government took away what was required to help them, particularly First
[ Page 1082 ]
Nations students, when they took away the training counsellors.

Now they've announced they're going to reintroduce a number of apprenticeship coaches — 15 of them. With 33,549 registered participants in the ITA, that amounts to an apprentice-coach ratio of 2,236 to 1.

How does the ministry plan to use these 15 coaches effectively to support over 30,000 apprentices?

The Chair: I remind the member to please address his questions through the Chair, because I'm feeling kind of left out.

D. Routley: I will.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[1710]

Hon. S. Bond: The Industry Training Authority is looking at a number of strategies to support apprentices. It's not simply apprentices' coaches, although we think those will be very helpful. They will be disbursed regionally. So there will be a regional representation of those coaches supporting apprentices and employers.

We're also looking at how we work in providing better support, including checklists, sponsors manuals, tools. We're going to improve on-line resources. We're working with our stakeholders, including the K-to-12 system, looking at how we can better share information and tools that can be integrated into orientation and technical training programs. So there are a number of ways that we're going to work to improve support for apprentices.

As I pointed out to the member opposite, we continue to invest, and we've seen success. We have doubled the number of apprentices who are First Nations. We've seen a significant increase in the number of women who are apprentices. And we're going to find ways to….

As I said to the member opposite, is a 54 percent completion rate what I think the number should be for British Columbia? No. The answer is that we're going to look at how we support apprentices, but I also want to put this in context. This is a problem across the country. It is not unique to British Columbia.

The Chair: Member.

D. Routley: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's very nice to have you in this meeting, performing such an excellent duty and coming from the lovely constituency of White Rock, home of my stepmother — an absolutely beautiful community.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Member — very perceptive of you.

D. Routley: To allow you the full inclusion in the meeting.

Let's take a little bit of an accounting. We've got a minister with a mandate letter that says that her duty is to expand the trades-training output of the province. We've got a system that was dismantled, essentially, in 2004 and compartmentalized, the results of which we're now experiencing with low completion rates.

We have a system that is supported on a per-student basis — per-week, per-student funding that hasn't changed in 12 years. We have a system that denied its students support, such as apprenticeship coaches, for a decade, and now we're reintroducing 15, which creates a ratio of more than 2,000 to 1.

Now, we also have a system that disinvested in the notion of compulsory trades in this province. Alberta, which has much better outcomes, has continued to maintain compulsory trades. The minister can deny that, and perhaps people who are less associated with the system would be wondering which is true. But I'm confident that those people who are stakeholders in the system and are listening to this will empathize with what I'm saying about the lack of support for students, the lack of output of completions in this province.

Given that there is no requirement of compulsory trades in this province anymore, does the minister not feel that that contributes to the fact that fewer students complete their Red Seal training? And if we recommitted to compulsory trades in this province…. Alberta currently has 19 of 51 trades compulsory. If we reinvested in that notion, does the minister feel that that would lead to more completions of full-scope trainees?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[1715]

The Chair: Yes, Minister.

Hon. S. Bond: "Yes, Minister." Thank you very much, hon. Chair. I appreciate hearing that.

I guess it's an opportunity for us to compare the glass half-full and the glass half-empty, because the member opposite provides a number of statistics. Let me counter that with this — the facts, the numbers.

There are now over 35,000 registered apprentices, double the number registered in December 2001. Youth participants in high school programs have increased by 287 percent.

In 2012-13, ITA was responsible for 25,500 apprenticeship and foundation seats at public and private institutions. Now we're going to increase that in 2013 by 6 percent. The ITA has surpassed its target for the number of credentials issued. In fact, it was the highest number that have been issued in British Columbia, triple the number that were issued in 2004-2005, when the ITA was established.

The member's concern…. There are many people who are concerned and have an opinion and a view about
[ Page 1083 ]
compulsory trades, and it's been considered seriously by the ministry and by the government. In fact, there is not evidence that would suggest that compulsory trades alone would actually increase completion rates.

One of the things that we were very careful about is that trades are still…. There are still standards. There are still expectations about quality and safety. In fact, 20 of our trades continue to be regulated through authorities whose specific safety licensing and other requirements must be met by workers, in addition to ITA certification.

A good example of that is the crane trades. They're regulated by WorkSafe B.C. Refrigeration and gas fitting are regulated through the B.C. Safety Authority.

While some people believe that compulsory trades may increase apprenticeship completion rates, there is no evidence that compulsory trades, on their own, directly influence completion rates.

D. Routley: It may be true that on their own, they will not necessarily increase completions, but compulsory trades — along with a system that supports students to a greater degree, both in per-week funding and in terms of apprenticeship counselling, in conjunction with the compulsory trades requirement in this province — would increase completions.

It would, to a greater degree, guarantee public safety through having more competent tradespeople working on sensitive and potentially dangerous projects. That is the case in our neighbouring province, the neighbouring jurisdiction in Alberta. They have a journeyman-apprenticeship ratio of 2 to 1. We have no such requirements in this province around those ratios.

These are the components of a system that is meant to really produce results. We can look to little bits and pieces, and the minister can talk about totals in billions of dollars, but when it comes right down to it, this government and this economy are failing to produce the number of tradespeople and skilled people required to sustain us.

This requirement for compulsory trades would dramatically increase the competency of the B.C. trades and skilled workforce. Does the minister not see that that would be a good commitment for this government to make?

Hon. S. Bond: I've answered that question for the member. I have clearly pointed out that there continue to be 20 of our trades that are regulated through authorities. I gave a number of those examples. There has been considerable discussion about whether or not compulsory trades would dramatically increase apprenticeship completion rates, and I'm advised that work has demonstrated that in and of itself, that would not be the case.

[1720]

You know, we continue to hear the member opposite suggest that no improvements have been made, and that's simply not correct. When we look at aboriginal participation in apprenticeship training, as I mentioned numerous times, it has doubled since 2006-2007. Ten percent of all registered apprentices are currently women. That's up from 8 percent in 2009.

We're continuing to make progress. There is work to be done. We work with other jurisdictions, as well, to talk about how, across this country, we can improve completion rates. It is a critical issue, and I would remind the member opposite that in fact, our numbers demonstrate that British Columbia's completion rate is actually above the national average.

D. Routley: A recent report by the Canadian Apprenticeship Forum titled Effective Journeyperson Apprentice Mentoring on-the-Job: Tips, Strategies and Resources indicates that the most important factor in apprenticeship success is the mentor relationship between apprentices and journeypersons.

B.C. is the only jurisdiction in Canada that does not have a fixed apprentice-to-journeyperson ratio. Alberta has an apprentice-to-journeyperson ratio of 1 to 2, and on average, 80 percent of completing apprentices in Red Seal trades pass their Red Seal exams. This is in contrast to a 37 percent completion rate of Red Seal apprentices in B.C.

Do the minister and her government plan to reintroduce an apprentice-to-journeyperson ratio in B.C.?

Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite again, I'll just remind him that Alberta's numbers and British Columbia's numbers cannot be directly compared. Alberta does not include first-year dropouts in its numbers. Stats Canada will tell you that British Columbia's number for completion rate is 54 percent, and it is above the national average.

Do we need to work on improving that outcome? Absolutely, we do, along with every other jurisdiction in Canada.

I'm told that the thinking around ratios…. When you look at that requirement and that ratio, it was very restrictive. It restricted, for example, small businesses in terms of considering their ability to utilize an apprentice and to have an apprentice as part of their small business.

In fact, there was flexibility built into the system. While the ITA does require that work-based training of each apprentice is completed under the supervision of a qualified tradesperson, there is flexibility. One of the reasons for doing that was encouraging smaller businesses to be able to take on apprentices.

Right now I can tell you that in British Columbia we need employers to be considering taking on apprentices — at a time when we look at what we're facing by 2020. So we're going to continue to look at how we provide quality training of our apprentices, and we're going to do that by being creative and innovative. That's exactly what we're going to continue to focus on as we move forward.
[ Page 1084 ]

D. Routley: The minister's goals and her claims don't match her government's investment or its record.

The Industry Training Authority has recently changed its funding model away from course delivery to a per-student model. I've tried to discuss that with the minister. She doesn't appear to be interested in discussing the per-week, per-student funding amounts, which haven't changed in 12 years. But that's what, now, these training organizations and training institutions need to grapple with in terms of delivering programs.

Many of the training providers have indicated they can no longer cover their operating costs associated with program delivery or purchase new equipment and have even begun to cancel courses. How does the minister's government plan to meet the skills-training shortage by underfunding its training providers?

Hon. S. Bond: The member is actually incorrect in his description of the discussion we've had this afternoon. We've engaged in conversation about Mr. Reed's letter for quite a period of time.

As I said, the Industry Training Authority has reached out to talk to those institutions about their concerns about the per-pupil funding.

[1725]

To suggest that we haven't invested in training is simply not correct. We have the largest expansion of post-secondary education in the history of British Columbia, at $1.9 billion.

In fact, when we look at the spending in our ministry, as I pointed out to the member opposite, it exceeds $600 million. We continue to add seats. We continue to see more apprentices added to the system. And we're going to work with those institutions to align their training dollars with the opportunities that are necessary to ensure that we have the demands met for those industries coming to British Columbia.

D. Routley: Well, all of that's going to be kind of hard if we aren't adequately supporting. No one — certainly, I haven't — suggested that the government hasn't invested, that the government hasn't supported. The problem is degree. The problem is scope.

The problem is that the per-student, per-week funding amount hasn't changed in 12 years, while the costs have dramatically risen for those institutions. That is the problem. That is the component of the letter that the minister has failed to adequately address. In fact, that leaves these institutions short of the necessary funds or support to be able to deliver programs to students.

They're cutting courses. They are cutting the length of time for courses. In fact, they've expressed to the government worries that these cuts to the length of time that certain programs are being delivered constitute a risk to the students.

On the heavy-duty-mechanics file, Trades Training B.C. points out that there's been an arbitrary reduction by the ITA of six weeks in the training — from the recommended 36 weeks to 30 weeks. The industry and the institutions do not support that change. They point to this being a challenge to offer the revised program due to the quality, timing and safety issues for the learners.

These are serious and significant outcomes of public policy decisions made by this government, and I think the minister owes it to those students and owes it to the taxpayers who support these training programs to explain how her government is going to make two plus two equal five.

If we have fewer resources, if we have inadequate resources, if we have inadequate student supports, we cannot make that equation equal an increase in the scope of training, in the number of trainees produced or in the quality of the education they receive.

That's the task outlined in the mandate letter. Increase the number of trainees. Increase their skills-to-job match. How is minister going to do that without significantly increasing the investment in supporting students?

Hon. S. Bond: That's precisely what we've been discussing for the last hour. In fact, British Columbians today spend $5 million of their money on post-secondary education a day in the province of B.C. It's $1.9 billion a year.

To the member opposite, he is wrong. We've increased the post-secondary education budget by 47 percent since 2001. In fact, we've seen FTE funding increased by 25 percent since 2001.

We can continue to have this discussion, but let's just go back to a few of those institutions. Again, I am delighted to and will look forward to an opportunity to have a conversation with Mr. Reed as a result of the letter that he has shared. I'm told the ITA has already reached out to have a constructive discussion with him and the others that are represented.

But let's just go back down this list again. North Island College. Since 2001 their grants have increased by 25.7 percent and their seats have gone up by 5.5 percent.

Vancouver Island University. Oh, I think the member opposite would know that one fairly well. There's a 39½ percent increase in their grant funding and a 9.5 percent increase in the seats in that institution.

Camosun College — a $14.7 million increase, or 39.7 percent increase. I can hardly imagine how British Columbians do not see that a 39.7 percent increase in grants and a 10.4 percent increase in seats are anything but an increase.

[1730]

I can assure the member opposite that on this side of the House our goal is to make sure that two plus two equals four.

D. Routley: It seems that the government's goal is
[ Page 1085 ]
to make two plus two equal three. The minister talks about these extraordinary numbers — a 39 percent increase. Well, that's over a 12-year period. That's barely above the basic rate of inflation. Yet the government's task and the ministry's task in the mandate letter is to meet the future training requirements of this economy, which would require a huge increase in investment, instead of what we've seen, which per student, per week is no change for 12 years.

The minister can read numbers that are in the millions and billions, and they may be facts. But you know what? Per student per week, the funding hasn't changed for 12 years. That's the bottom line. The government has cut supports to students, cut requirements for employers in terms of ratios and cut requirements for training and full-scope training of Red Seal apprentices by allowing this compartmentalized system to produce semi-skilled workers who now cannot transfer their skills to the industries of tomorrow.

That is what has happened over the time of these big numbers that the minister reads into the record. What we need to address are the facts. The facts are that this province is not producing enough skilled workers to meet its demands — demands that this government has been aware of for over ten years. Steps the government took to undermine trades training in this province have now resulted in this terrible situation.

The minister says that her government will not reinvest in the notion of compulsory trades. She's pointed to the fact that several trades in this province are regulated, some of them through the B.C. Safety Authority. Electrical apprentices are one of those categories that are regulated by the B.C. Safety Authority.

The B.C. Safety Authority and this government are currently diluting the requirements for electrical trainees. In fact, the government, through the B.C. Safety Authority, is allowing electrical technicians to do work on high-conductive projects that require full-scope Red Seal electricians, at least in the past. That will put workers and the public at risk.

The B.C. Safety Authority has diminished its inspection rate to approximately 11 percent of projects. Only 11 percent of projects are inspected. There are ten municipalities in this province that do their own inspections because of their concern for the liability they will incur if they do not complete inspections. Those municipalities — their target is that 90 percent of projects will be inspected.

Here we have a government that's diluting the requirement for the people doing that highly dangerous work on highly conductive electrical projects and, at the same time, diminishing the number of inspections. The reason that inspections could be diminished or reduced in any case, even in the perfect scenario, would be because we could assume that the workers have a full scope of training and are fully capable of doing the work.

These steps are putting workers and the public at risk, and the minister needs to account for that.

Hon. S. Bond: I think the member needs to think very carefully about what he just said in this House. To suggest that the B.C. Safety Authority is diluting its responsibility for worker safety in British Columbia — that is a very serious statement. Suggesting, in fact, that they were putting lives at risk — that is bordering on an irresponsible comment.

The B.C. Safety Authority has a mandate in British Columbia. We should be clear that the ITA does not water down standards. In fact, they are still meeting the standards set by the Red Seal expectations.

[1735]

It is really disappointing to hear a member in this House stand up and suggest that the B.C. Safety Authority has diluted its responsibility and is putting workers' lives at risk. I'd like to know which part of these statistics the member would suggest is a terrible mess, as he's described the training system in British Columbia. Again, we look at the quality of workers being trained in this province, and the member suggests that all of them are substandard and that it's a terrible mess.

Which part of this does the member not agree with — that youth participants in high school programs have increased by 287 percent? Is that a mess? What about the fact that since 2006 and 2007 aboriginal participation in apprenticeship has doubled? Is that a mess? Or perhaps the fact that we have 10 percent of all registered apprentices now being women in British Columbia? All are the result of a strategy that was designed to bring workers who are under-represented in the workforce into the workforce.

We're going to spend a ton of effort and energy in our plan, looking at making sure that people who have a disability and women and First Nations representatives are better represented in our workforce. And we're going to make sure that British Columbians are at the front of the line. I can assure you: in every conversation that I have with a project proponent, it is made perfectly clear that in B.C. we want our workers to be first in line.

We're going to make sure we work constructively. The last thing we're going to do is make accusations or assumptions about the B.C. Safety Authority and their diluted responsibility.

D. Routley: I will consider myself rebuked for having the audacity to repeat what has been told to me by stakeholders such as the Electrical Inspectors Association of British Columbia. I mean, it's shocking — isn't it? — that a member of this House would stand up and read this from a letter from the electrical inspectors of this province, who say to the current Premier:

"On behalf of the Electrical Inspectors Association of British Columbia…, which represents a broad cross-section of the electrical industry in B.C., I would like to express our concerns regarding recent action by the British Columbia Safety Authority…
[ Page 1086 ]
to recognize restricted electrical-work-practitioner certificates issued by the Applied Science Technologists and Technicians of British Columbia.

"This action by the B.C. Safety Authority violates clause 15 of the B.C. Safety Standards Act, which permits the B.C. Safety Authority provincial safety manager to recognize programs of training only for the purpose of qualifying for licence, certificate, permit or other permission under this act.

"Allowing semi-skilled workers the right to perform regulated electrical work in B.C. on electrical systems for which they are not adequately trained will not enhance as claimed but will endanger public health and safety in B.C.

"This action not only creates a legal conflict with clause 15 of the B.C. Safety Standards Act but undermines the Canadian electrical apprenticeship system and the national Red Seal endorsement program, which have been designed to provide both the technical and the experiential learning required to become a safe, skilled electrical worker.

"This Red Seal training is recognized both nationally and internationally for producing qualified electrical workers in the technical knowledge and on-site practical training necessary to safely install and maintain regulated electrical equipment for the protection of workers and the general public from fire and shock hazards."

I guess that's just some audacious and irresponsible member from the opposition claiming to the minister that the actions of her government are putting at risk public and worker safety. It isn't, on the other hand, the Electrical Inspectors Association of B.C. saying that, is it — through the Chair — minister?

Hon. S. Bond: The question would simply be if the member actually spoke to the B.C. Safety Authority about those questions before making the assumptions. Our point is that people in British Columbia expect that that organization does its job.

That file actually falls under another minister's purview in terms of whether or not that issue has proceeded or not, but in fact, the issue is simply that before we raise those kinds of questions, one would hope that both sides of the issue had been thoroughly canvassed, without creating an atmosphere of fear.

[1740]

Of course we want workers to be safe in British Columbia. My point is simply that without doing all of the homework on that issue in terms of asking the B.C. Safety Authority or the minister responsible…. That would be the appropriate way to raise that issue.

The Chair: Member.

D. Routley: Mr. Chair, thank you very much for recognizing me as a member of the B.C. Legislature and thereby adequately qualified to ask these questions in budget estimates of the ministry for which I am critic. That minister is across from me in this room, so I am taking this opportunity now to ask those important questions — those important questions which have been raised by the Electrical Inspectors Association of British Columbia.

I think it's only responsible that I take their concerns to the minister and ask her to explain how these steps are not — as they characterize — potentially endangering worker and public safety. That's the question.

The minister's government has participated in a response to labour market requirements by diluting trade requirements, by undermining completions and allowing semi-skilled workers into the workforce where we need full-scope-trained workers who can transfer their skills, be adequately flexible for the B.C. economy to maintain its competitive status. Now, through this type of action, it's in fact potentially endangering public safety by the measures that they are taking in order to respond to labour market requirements.

That's a serious problem. The minister can admonish me, as a member of the B.C. Legislature, for asking such a question, such an audacious question, which is actually posed by the Electrical Inspectors Association of British Columbia.

But I think the minister needs to come to terms with the fact that eliminating the requirements for ratios of journeypersons to apprentices, eliminating the requirement for compulsory trades in this province is putting public safety at risk. And I am asking the minister: will she commit to the people of British Columbia that this government will reintroduce compulsory trades requirements in this province?

Hon. S. Bond: I've answered that question and explained to the member what the rationale was for the change. I made it clear that 20 of our trades continue to be regulated, ensuring that there are appropriate standards and practices in place that protect public safety.

I've also made it clear repeatedly. For the member to suggest that we haven't had a discussion about these issues…. We've spent the last two hours talking about them, and I've tried to be very respectful in the fact that the questions have been repetitive and have continuously implied that every piece of information shared is, in the member opposite's own words, "spin."

The facts are simply these: $1.9 billion in post-secondary education spending, the largest investment in the history of British Columbia; an additional $500 million in terms of looking at other investments from this ministry as we look at a trades-training program. We've seen increased aboriginal apprentices. We have more women in the system.

I've been very candid about my view that we need to continue to find ways to support apprentices to see our completion rate increase. But again, I clarified the record to ensure the member opposite…. You cannot compare Alberta to British Columbia because it is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Our completion rates are above the national average. Are they where we want them to be? No, they're not. We're going to work very hard, roll up our sleeves and be constructive, work with industry, work with unions and ensure that we have the quality workers that we need in
[ Page 1087 ]
this province.

But I'm going to stand in this House every day and remind British Columbians that the training system in this province does work, that the end result is not, as the member suggests, a terrible mess where we have workers that are not as skilled as others.

We have an exceptional group of institutions that train people in this province every day. They meet standards. They are high-quality workers and, in fact, are sought after in other jurisdictions. That can hardly be described as a mess.

[1745]

D. Routley: Unfortunately for people in the trades-training sector in British Columbia, it is a mess. We have endured eight years — eight lost years — where this government should have heeded the warnings that they received from all the stakeholders when they initially dismantled the trades-training system in this province.

They pushed labour away from the table. That hasn't been done in Alberta. That wasn't done in Australia. That wasn't done in New Zealand. It was done here.

They cut supports for students in the form of counsellors. They have failed to increase support for students. Per-student-per-week funding is the same as it was 12 years ago.

They have diluted the requirement for full-scope training through compartmentalization, stranding workers in semi-skilled status. Now we see a high level of residential construction unemployment, with workers unable to transfer their skills to industries where there is employment. We've seen a dilution of requirements for full-scope training through the abolition of a requirement for compulsory trades in this province.

We can compare to Alberta in terms of the numbers of completions. This province's goal this year is 7,500. Alberta's completion two years ago was 9,000, and it has gone up from there.

Those are the realities that face trainees in this province. Those are the realities that face companies in this province. The government has failed to recruit industry into supporting apprentices in this province. So that's the situation.

The minister can quote numbers in the billions and the millions, but when it comes to one student in one job, they don't have the support. Their skills have been diluted. They cannot transfer their skills.

We have disinvested in the Red Seal trades in this province. The outcome is that this economy will be less competitive and this economy will be less successful because of what the B.C. Liberals have done to the training program in the province.

I'll pass off to a colleague now, but I wanted to thank the people who have been supporting the minister in these estimates debates. I'd like to thank all the people in the province who struggle to provide training to students in all the institutions and circumstances in which they find themselves, and the incredible job they do despite this lack of support. That is my impression of what I've been told by the stakeholders for which her ministry is responsible.

Hon. S. Bond: I just want to say, first of all, that I appreciate the opportunity for dialogue and question. As heated as it might be, it is the appropriate venue for this debate.

I will be candid about this. We laid out our record on trades training, we laid our record out on the economy, we laid out our record on skills training, and British Columbians overwhelmingly passed judgment on whose plan would work.

In fact, I want to read into the record, just to be sure that others hear this…. There is a performance evaluation on contractors and certified individuals that's done.

This is a satisfaction survey through industry about the B.C. Safety Authority. I am very concerned about…. I understand that the letter was written and received, and I appreciate that, and it needs to be considered. But I just want to point out that in the 2011 survey 85 percent of the people who responded to this survey in industry gave the organization excellent and very good ratings, with 50 percent of them giving excellent and very good evaluations.

I certainly don't want to leave the impression that the B.C. Safety Authority is not performing extremely well. If there are concerns about a particular program, I would hope the member opposite would take that up, certainly, with the B.C. Safety Authority and the minister responsible.

[1750]

B. Ralston: I have questions in a couple of areas. The first one relates to the minister's mandate letter, item No. 8, "Working with the Ministry of International Trade and the Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat, act as the lead ministry for the Premier's trade missions."

I've asked in estimates of the Minister of International Trade and got some answers about the tentative budget for the Premier's proposed trip to Asia at some point in the fall. No details are released at this point of $750,000 from her budget. I see in the Major Investments Office subvote there is a reference to trade missions.

Can the minister explain, given that her ministry is the lead ministry: how does that administratively work? It would seem, at least to my perhaps naive understanding, that international trade and trade missions would go together rather than be housed in her ministry. But that's not the case, so I'm interested in how that would work — first question.

Secondly, what further source does the funding for trade missions in her ministry come from? The Minister of International Trade made it very clear that some of the
[ Page 1088 ]
funding from her ministry comes from contingency — a very unusual arrangement, which I'm taking up with the Auditor General. Can the minister advise whether any of the money, in addition to the major investments subvote, comes from contingency?

The Chair: Member, could I ask you to come down to the chair here, so that the people in the viewing audience will be able to connect your face with your voice?

B. Ralston: I think it's probably better that I don't.

The Chair: I appreciate that and understand your understanding of that. However, I would still like them to be able to see your beautiful visage.

Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite: we do not have a budget line for trade missions in our ministry. We are responsible for working to organize the Premier's trade mission, and the others are managed elsewhere.

In fact, the only contributions that we will make — and they're not insignificant — would be staff support. We have a project lead that is working, as you can imagine, to put all of the complex details together. The support to that mission will be provided by our deputy minister. He is experienced in terms of previous Premiers' trade missions. In fact, we are focusing only on the Premier's trade missions. We are providing staff support, oversight, but we do not have a budget for that, and the only contributions will be staff time.

In terms of additional moneys from contingency, we have $1 million, and that is for the hosting program.

[1755]

B. Ralston: I'm reading from the official estimates books for this fiscal year, the "Voted appropriation" description, and it says — I'm going to cut to the chase here — "…stakeholders to identify barriers impeding investment projects…and working to overcome them; and funding and support for hosting events and trade missions." It doesn't qualify that to say: "Premier's trade missions."

Just so that I understand this, then, this ministry is responsible for Premier's trade missions, and the Ministry of International Trade is responsible for other trade missions —is that the division of labour?

Hon. S. Bond: The vote description does reference trade missions. As I said earlier, we are concentrating on organizing the Premier's trade missions. That reference is probably to inbound trade missions. As you can imagine, the MIO, the Major Investments Office, actually has a key role in hosting and welcoming inbound trade missions.

B. Ralston: The description of ministerial responsibilities on the website also attributes trade missions, simpliciter, to this ministry. It's, at the very least, not clear. But I want to move on because I have very little time.

The minister will no doubt have received a lot of representations about the transfer of settlement service money from provincial control back to federal control. A number of the organizations that have provided and administered that service have expressed their concern.

I want to quote from an article in the Kamloops Daily News, July 11, 2013:

"'Sometimes the people who are naturalized Canadian citizens will have many barriers — language, cultural and also sometimes employment — so they do need our assistance, but they are not qualified as our client,' said Baljit Sethi, the leader of Prince George's immigrant services society, who is also an Order of B.C. winner and a Citizenship and Immigration Canada Lifetime Achievement Award recipient."

What she's referring to there is that the new federal criteria, apparently, forbid agencies that do win those contracts….

There's certainly no guarantee that there will be the same organizations that have administered the federal money previously — that provincial organizations will be successful in the bids to the federal government that are required. She's referring to the fact that the new criteria will not allow them to deliver services to Canadian citizens regardless of whether or not their language skills or other needs might otherwise qualify them for support.

This is an opinion expressed by, I'm sure, someone that the minister is well acquainted with in her community, a credible person, so I'm interested in her response to that.

[1800]

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly. I should let the member opposite know that I do know Baljit Sethi very, very well. She is highly regarded in our community, and I very much appreciate a lot of teaching that's she's given me in terms of multiculturalism and serving those constituents that I have. I know her very well.

Obviously, any time we see change…. The federal government has made a decision to centralize and take back the dollars, and our job is to try to make that transition as smooth as possible.

B.C. will continue to benefit from that programming, and we're going to work as constructively as we can across government. Our ministry is leading a discussion across the government that will look at how we meet the needs of newcomers who are not eligible for federal immigrant settlement services. As the member points out, that's naturalized Canadian citizens and refugee claimants.

We're working across government to look at the impact. We've made it clear that we are concerned about the announcement. We want to make sure that B.C. continues to receive its fair share.

The call for proposals is currently out and being considered, and I'm told that the results of that won't be known until January.
[ Page 1089 ]

B. Ralston: If I can move to another topic — temporary foreign workers.

Recently, prior to the election, the Premier said this — and I'm quoting from the transcript of The Simi Sara Show on CKNW, Monday, April 22:

"Well, I know the federal government's reviewing it, and you know, they know. I've told them this. British Columbians lack confidence that the program is working as it should.

"There are lots of temporary workers in British Columbia — people picking berries out in the Fraser Valley. There are people working on ski hills. If you go to any ski hill in British Columbia — lots of people with Australian accents."

Then she goes on. She's asked about the role of the federal government, and she says:

"Well, you know, no, it is a federal program. I mean, they decide how they let in temporary foreign workers. The applications are made to the federal government, and they adjudicate that. We don't even, in the provincial government, see those documents."

Does the minister agree with that position taken by her leader?

Hon. S. Bond: The statement by the Premier is factual. It is a federal government program. All of the decisions around admissibility and looking at the labour market opinion are made by the federal government.

B. Ralston: I'm going to ask the minister…. I'm sure her staff can turn her to this. The Canada–British Columbia immigration agreement, annex F, "Temporary Foreign Workers." Let me read from section 4.3, "Work permit issuance to groups of foreign nationals."

"Canada and British Columbia also agree that, pursuant to paragraph 204(c) of the IRPR" — that's the immigration and refugee protection regulations — "CIC may also issue work permits to foreign nationals who are destined to work in British Columbia in specific occupations for an employer or a defined group of employers without requiring a labour market opinion whenever British Columbia has provided CIC with a written recommendation to issue work permits to members of a defined group authorizing them to work for an employer or a defined group of employers and the foreign nationals are determined to be members of that group."

So does the minister persist in her position that the province of British Columbia has — apparently, according to her — no jurisdiction in the selection of temporary foreign workers?

Hon. S. Bond: That's an annex to the agreement which has never been used by British Columbia.

B. Ralston: What the minister is saying, then, is that there is jurisdiction, and British Columbia has declined to exercise that discretion. Is that what the minister is saying?

[1805]

Hon. S. Bond: What the minister is saying is that the federal government makes all the decisions around admissibility and around labour market opinions. This is an annex that has never be utilized by British Columbia. In fact, it's a very small segment. I'm advised it has not been used by British Columbia. The federal government makes admissibility and labour market opinion decisions.

B. Ralston: Well, with respect, I disagree with that interpretation, because that's clearly not what the agreement says. But I'll move on because I don't have a lot of time.

I want to again quote from the Premier. I understand this is an issue that she's going to be taking up at the federal-provincial conference. Certainly, Mr. McGuinty, the former Premier of Ontario, has spoken about immigration. As the minister is aware, it is one of the two genuinely shared jurisdictions in the BNA Act, the other being agriculture. I'm going to quote from Mr. McGuinty first: "We want greater flexibility…. We want to become masters of our own destiny when it comes to the immigration file." That's from Postmedia at some undetermined date here.

I'm going to quote again from the Premier. I don't think this is particularly controversial, but this is the position I understand that she's taking on behalf of the government to the federal-provincial conference in Ontario that I believe starts tomorrow:

"'In an area of shared jurisdiction…we want more space to be able to make our decisions about which immigrants will come to our provinces, where they will be settled and how many we'll get, because it's provincial governments that drive national economies.'

"Immigration is one of the important levers for any jurisdiction, she said, yet the provinces don't control it. 'We need a lot more control over that so we can, as provinces, do our job and lift the national economy up.'"

Is that an accurate description of British Columbia's position on the immigration file? That the province…. Unlike the example that the minister just referred to, where the province had declined jurisdiction that it could use on temporary foreign workers — and one can speculate on the reasons for that — is that the position of the government of British Columbia going into these discussions with other Premiers and with the national government?

Hon. S. Bond: If the question is whether Premier Clark is going to go to the Council of the Federation and argue on behalf of British Columbians that we need flexibility at a time when we have unprecedented opportunity and investment requirements for skilled labour, I would think that she's been very public about that throughout our entire campaign and that would not at all be contradictory to anything that we believe as a government.

B. Ralston: Well, flexibility is somewhat ambiguous as a term.

Does the minister, on behalf of the government of British Columbia, say that British Columbia wishes to assume…? It is an area of shared jurisdiction. There is a federal-provincial agreement on immigration, which…. Potentially, British Columbia has essentially declined,
[ Page 1090 ]
other than the PNP program, most of the jurisdiction available to it.

As the minister will know, or will be advised, the Quebec government has a separate agreement with Canada, as a province. They're very active on that file, and the agreement is used fairly robustly by Quebec. Obviously, the political context is somewhat different, but nonetheless, there is jurisdiction there to do it.

Can the minister advise just what the position of British Columbia will be in relation to acting upon the shared jurisdiction and the opportunities that British Columbia has to select immigrants in a number of categories, beyond simply describing it as seeking more flexibility?

Hon. S. Bond: I think the Premier clearly laid out the government's perspective, and she'll carry on that discussion with other Premiers as she begins those meetings tomorrow. I think her opinion is clear, and it articulates the view of the government.

B. Ralston: Again, in the area of selection, one of the aspects of the review of the temporary foreign worker program was language skill.

[1810]

It has been recently announced that the federal government would revamp the rules to prevent employers from mandating foreign language skills to work in Canada. Opinion has been expressed — I think by Richard Kurland, who's a Vancouver lawyer and very knowledgable on immigration policy. He says that the language requirement will still provide a substantial loophole in the sense that an employer can insist that it's essential that the proposed worker have a skill in a certain language, which would then require a temporary foreign worker rather than a Canadian national or a Canadian landed immigrant.

What is the view of the minister or the ministry on that proposed change, given what the Premier said — that she recognized that British Columbians are skeptical about how the temporary foreign worker program is being used in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, the federal government did undertake the review, and this government actually supported that review. They've been clear that their changes will be made. While I certainly understand that there are people — and in this case, a well-respected lawyer — who believe there's a loophole, the federal government doesn't share that view, obviously.

The Premier's goal at the Council of the Federation, beginning tomorrow, is to take British Columbia's views to that table, and I think her statement spoke for itself. We want to, wherever possible, have the flexibility we need to ensure we have the workforce that is necessary for the future. She will, I am sure, speak energetically and articulately to that very point.

B. Ralston: Well, a cynic might say that lawyers know more about loopholes than other people, but be that as it may.

One of the other areas of the lack of public confidence in the temporary foreign worker program that was expressed was the ability of an employer to pay up to 15 percent less than the going rate for similar occupations. What is the position of the government of British Columbia on that requirement?

Hon. S. Bond: The federal government responded to that criticism. That opportunity for employers has been removed, and as you would expect, the government believes that employers need to adhere to that change.

B. Ralston: The minister earlier in the estimates referenced the Natural Gas Workforce Strategy and Action Plan.

[1815]

On page 10 of that report it's stated that "in fact, a significant portion of the workers will only be required on a temporary basis during the construction phase of the projects. Temporary workers — whether from other parts of B.C., Canada or the world — will play an important part in addressing labour supply-demand gaps associated with developing B.C.'s LNG…industry."

Can the minister advise, from the perspective of the immigration jurisdiction that she's responsible for, what percentage of the proposed workforce will be temporary foreign workers? I understand that that section of the ministry is already gearing up to dramatically increase the capacity to approve, from the provincial perspective, temporary foreign workers.

Hon. S. Bond: The first thing we have to correct is the last thing the member said. No one in the ministry is ramping up to start suddenly to welcome thousands of temporary foreign workers. We're not doing that. We've been really clear. British Columbians come first with every company that I meet with — local residents, regional residents, British Columbians and then jurisdictions beyond.

We are acutely aware of the concerns that people have in British Columbia about temporary foreign workers, but we also need to sensitively manage these projects. I'm sure the member opposite doesn't want to see some of the boom-and-bust cycles that we've seen in previous generations in our province and other provinces.

When there is temporary work that is necessary, we want to make sure we have workers to fill those jobs, but we also don't want to build infrastructure around temporary jobs that cause a bust cycle shortly thereafter. So we're going to carefully manage this as we build the skills-training plan.
[ Page 1091 ]

We should be clear that we're looking at how we include the maximum number of British Columbians in the workforce, but we also have to start having a conversation about the math here. Even if every British Columbian who could and would want to work is employed — and that will be our goal — there just aren't enough British Columbians by themselves to do all of this work.

What we have to do is sort out how we're going to do that — ensuring that British Columbians come first but that we're looking to jurisdictions across our country and encouraging them to come and be part of what will be an exciting opportunity in the future. Companies are very willing to work with us on that strategy.

M. Elmore: I have a question. It was brought forward to me from an immigration consultant. It is with respect to the eligibility criteria that are applied to folks who come in through the stream of the temporary foreign worker program, through the provincial nominee program, into British Columbia. It's been brought to my attention that the eligibility criteria that are set out by the federal government…. It mandates a minimum of a high school diploma recognized in other countries.

It's applied here in British Columbia once they're in the track for applying for permanent residency. The high school requirement is held to be a 12-year graduation program, and it's a different level in terms of temporary foreign workers coming from the Philippines, who graduate their high school with ten years.

It was brought to me that for the application in British Columbia, there's a discrepancy in terms of how it's applied in other provinces.

[1820]

Hon. S. Bond: I'm advised that if a person comes to British Columbia through the PNP program and then goes through for permanent residency, there would not be a conflict in terms of the ten- or 12-year difference. But if the member opposite has a specific question or case, we'd be happy to have someone take a look at it. Feel free to drop it off at my office, and we'll be sure that we have a look at the specifics.

L. Popham: I'll be focusing on the small business portion of this ministry. I'll be taking a look at the mandate letter first, which has four priorities. The first one is implementation and monitoring of small business accord; two, to reduce our RFPs to two pages for contracts under $250,000; to ensure a goal of 20 percent of government procurement being won by small business; and Premier's small business of the year awards.

My question is: how much has been allocated for each of these?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The breakdown allotted for the budget for our assistant deputy minister, the regulatory reform branch and then the small business branch — so the combined budget for those three areas — is just over $4 million, or $4.073 million.

For the small business branch itself, it's $2.36 million, but it's very hard to give the specific numbers that the member opposite requested, because there's a lot of cross-government work that goes into that — for example, the two-page RFP that we are committed to doing. We'll be doing some work with Citizens' Services, so there will be staff time shared within these two — for our ministry and the Ministry of Citizens' Services.

I can tell you that for the B.C. small business accord, we've allocated about $150,000 to address some of the recommendations and initiatives that are flowing out of that.

[1825]

L. Popham: The minister must have an idea regarding the budget for the Premier's small business of the year awards.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: It's $50,000.

L. Popham: When the minister laid out the priorities for the Small Business Ministry…. I'm curious as to why this can't be broken down more specifically. There are four priorities laid out, and I would think that when creating those priorities the minister would be looking at the budget within Small Business. If possible, could I have a bit more detail?

The $50,000 for the Premier's awards, obviously, is a set amount. Is the $50,000 something that can be exceeded, or is that a ceiling?

[1830]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: To the member opposite: sorry for the delay in responding to you. It's actually a little bit more difficult question to answer. The mandate letter does specify some of the goals and objectives that I as the minister responsible for tourism and small business need to ensure I accomplish. But the ministry does so much more than just that.

I'll give you an example. Something that's very important that we've allotted $200,000 for is the Open for Business Awards. That's actually as a result of a recommendation coming out of the small business accord, but you don't see that in the mandate letter. But $200,000 — that's up to $10,000 made available for up to 20 municipalities in British Columbia who show that they can operate within the spirit of the accord and display to us some initiatives they are going to undertake to help grow small business.

The other area that's very important to us is the Small Business Roundtable, for example. We've allotted $170,000, which is mostly staff time. In a lot of areas in
[ Page 1092 ]
the small business branch, the money we have allotted to the various areas actually goes into staff time, but staff are not designated to work on just one particular project in the mandate letter. They're actually working on quite a few initiatives.

L. Popham: Thank you very much. I understand that it's complicated.

One of the goals that I'm very interested in — and I applaud the minister for having this as one of the goals — is the 20 percent government procurement priority. Now, that's something I completely support, but there is something I would like to ask the minister.

In the platform for the B.C. Liberals before the election, there was a promise of increasing small business government procurement by 20 percent. In the mandate letter the goal is much different. It's to increase it to 20 percent. Those are two completely different numbers, so if the minister can explain which one is applicable.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: To the member opposite: good eye. It actually should be reading in the mandate letter that we're going to be increasing the amount of small business procurement from government by 20 percent. We actually think that small business already exceeds the 20 percent. Well, actually, I'm not sure that's the case, but our gut tells us that.

L. Popham: Just to confirm, then: perhaps we're doing 10 percent now, or 20 percent now, and we're going to increase that by 20 percent. So the total could be as high as 80 percent, possibly.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Whatever the level of small business procurement is right now, we will be increasing that by 20 percent.

L. Popham: What is the current percentage of government procurement for small business?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: We are actually working on that baseline right now, and as soon as we determine that, we will be happy to let the member opposite know that.

L. Popham: Okay, so not knowing the percentage of government procurement, how is the minister able to come up with the 20 percent figure without knowing where we stand right now?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: We think that increasing the amount of business that small business does with government by 20 percent is an aggressive but achievable target. We've looked at other studies. Other jurisdictions have looked at this, and we think we are in line with that target.

[1835]

L. Popham: It's my understanding now that the minister will have a total, a baseline to work from. What's the deadline on that?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: To the member opposite: as you can imagine, this is quite a complex process. It's going to be governmentwide. As such, we are working with ministries across this government. There is, however, a procurement council that we will be working with, and we would love to see us come up with a baseline this fall. We'll be working towards that goal.

L. Popham: I'll be looking forward to learning what the baseline is. Does the minister have any idea how many government contracts, in general, there are right now?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I'm sorry I can't be more accurate for the member opposite. It's a good question. We're actually working on getting that number right now, but it's fair to say that it's in the tens of thousands. Once we have established that — which is a huge feat in itself — we will be pleased to let the member opposite know.

L. Popham: Thank you very much. I'll look forward to that.

Rather than the number of contracts, maybe we can look at this issue in terms of total value of contracts. One large contract might have the same value as a hundred small ones, so what is the percentage of total value of government contracts held by small business?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: If we don't have the baseline, we actually can't do the math to establish the amount of business that small business already does with government. That's what we're in the process of calculating and discovering right now.

[1840]

The Chair: Minister. Member.

L. Popham: You can call me minister, if you'd like. Maybe in four years from now….

I understand it's complicated, and I understand the minister is working to get a baseline, but from my perspective, it's very hard to understand. I have a small business background. To set a goal of a 20 percent increase without having a baseline is, for me, hard to understand how we would get to that point. Because 20 percent — although, I'm sure, very obtainable — is a huge increase. Twenty percent of the amount of contracts is big without knowing a baseline.

I won't go on about this anymore, but for me, it's very concerning to set that goal without having a baseline. I
[ Page 1093 ]
think setting a goal to get a baseline would have been a better first step. Although, that being said, I completely support the initiative. Don't get me wrong. I think it's a great initiative.

Now, one of the things that I would be interested in learning, and perhaps the minister is working on that right now, is: what percentage of contracts, of the 20 percent increase, will be small businesses in B.C. but owned and operated by B.C. operators?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The intent of the 20 percent increase in the goal is to, obviously, have those small businesses that are in B.C. be the majority of that 20 percent increase. We actually need to set that baseline and do a lot of work. It's still early for us to be able to answer some of these good questions from the members opposite.

L. Popham: My next question is about the Small Business Roundtable. I don't see financial reporting in the annual report. Will there be? Is this a way that we can ensure transparency on the actions of the round table?

[1845]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I think the member opposite is asking, perhaps, what the Small Business Roundtable secretariat requires to operate. The annual report that the member opposite refers to I believe is the annual report of the Small Business Roundtable.

It is actually not a financial annual report. It's a report with recommendations to government from the small business community — to make recommendations to government to improve the competitiveness of B.C. and to encourage the growth and success of small business. The report also includes recommendations to the small business community as well, to give them some information on how they can actually improve their business.

I think, going back to the member's question, $170,000 is allocated for the Small Business Roundtable. That includes the FTE that has been allotted for this roundtable.

This is probably a really good opportunity to thank the Small Business Roundtable participants, who are not paid a per diem to come to these events. They do get their travel expenses paid for. But these are very busy folks from the small business community that pretty well give their time and advice to government in order to help us ensure that B.C. is the most small business–friendly jurisdiction in Canada.

L. Popham: My next question is about trade agreements and how preferential treatment to B.C.'s small businesses would square with TILMA, for example. Has there been any research done on that, or are there any policies that are being developed within this ministry to help aid us through that?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: We fully intend to comply with all the trade agreements that we have signed on to, obviously, including TILMA, the new west partnership and any other trade agreement we have signed on to.

Just for the member opposite's information, we also have our own core policy and procedures that we follow. Chapter 6, apparently, is all about procurement.

H. Bains: I will have one last question, but before I do that, I want to say thank you to the minister. I thought we had a good discussion and debate on a variety of issues the last couple of days. More importantly, I want to thank all of the staff who came here and sat through sometimes painful, I think, circumstances. I tried to be as friendly as possible. Nonetheless, thank you very much for all the support that you have provided us.

[1850]

This is one last question on employment standards. There was a letter sent to me by Renée Neuschule. This person tells me:

"I have been working in the IT industry for many years in the U.K. and in Canada here. I immigrated to Canada 17 years ago from the U.K., and I was accepted because I am a professional in the IT sector.

"Up until recently I have been self-employed and did not have to worry about my rights as an IT worker employed by a corporation. I am now employed full-time.

"Recently I've been researching into the B.C. labour laws regarding conditions of employment, including overtime, break times, holiday pay, etc. It's come to my attention that those of us who work in IT have absolutely no rights whatsoever, as stated in the ESA.

"The hours-of-work provisions of the act — including those governing meal breaks, split shifts, minimum daily pay and hours free from work each week, as well as the overtime and statutory holiday provisions — do not apply to high-technology professionals.

"I would really like an explanation why this is so. Why has this sector been arbitrarily excluded from any B.C. laws to protect workers from being treated as slaves to our employers? Are we not entitled to the same as other workers in B.C.?

"All IT workers in every other province in Canada are covered under their province's ESA to have the same rights as other regular workers. What makes B.C. so different? What can I do, as a resident of this province, to make changes to these unfair and archaic regulations?

"I look forward to hearing from you soonest with an answer to my question."

I would put this question to the minister. Perhaps the minister can explain and answer this person's very, very important and, I think, very serious question.

Hon. S. Bond: We'll certainly take that information.

It should be pointed out that there are a number of professions that are not covered under the act. It's not simply IT. Engineers, managers — there's a variety of groups.

I do hear the concern, and we'd be happy to at least receive the information from the person that the member has shared it from.
[ Page 1094 ]

Vote 30: ministry operations, $181,457,000 — approved.

Vote 31: labour programs, $14,697,000 — approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:53 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